Creative audacity: the art of not giving a f*ck what "they" think
Artist spotlight: Henri Rousseau (France, 1844-1910)
Studio B is an archive of paintings I can’t stop looking at and artists I wish I could talk to. Short(ish) visual essays on art history, beauty, influence, and whatever else comes through the frame, typically focused on a single artist at a time. My hope is that it feels as if we’re wandering through a gallery of the artist’s life together.
More from Studio B:
Vincent Van Gogh, Paul Gauguin, Berthe Morisot, Camille Pissarro, Odilon Redon, Henri Matisse
You don’t need a degree to make something beautiful. You don’t need a certificate to matter. Yet most people spend their entire lives waiting. Stalling at the threshold of their own ideas, hoping someone with a clipboard will finally tell them they’re allowed to begin.
Henri Rousseau didn’t wait.
He wasn’t trained. He wasn’t traveled. He wasn’t taken seriously. He painted lush, surreal jungles without ever leaving France. He submitted his work to salons that mocked him, year after year. He believed in his work when no one else did. And now those same paintings hang in the institutions that once laughed.
This isn’t a story about delusion. It’s about what happens when someone refuses to let their inexperience disqualify them. When someone trusts the world inside their head more than the rules outside it. It’s about naivety—not as a weakness, but as a strategy. A kind of defiance. The courage to make something strange and sincere in a world that wants polish, pedigree, and proof.
This is a story about how Henri Rousseau has become my accidental patron saint of creative audacity. His story feels like a direct challenge to every anxiety I've ever had about not being qualified enough, trained enough, experienced enough to make the things I want to make. Something I think we all can resonate with.
Paris, 1880-something. Rousseau punches tariffs at city gates during the day, then goes home to paint jungles he's never seen, mixing pigments nobody taught him to mix, squinting at stuffed tigers in the Jardin des Plantes for reference. He's over forty, under-credentialed, and completely unbothered by the fact that he has no business doing what he's doing.
The audacity of imagination over experience. While his contemporaries were debating proper perspective and academic technique, Rousseau was in the botanical gardens of Paris, staring at exotic plants through glass, letting his mind wander to places his body would never go. "When I step into the hothouses and see the plants from exotic lands, it seems to me that I am in a dream," he said.
Besides the gardens, he also relied heavily on a lavish album of 200 illustrations of wild animals published by the Galeries Lafayette department store. Think about that for a moment: some of the most psychologically penetrating jungle scenes in art history were painted by a man looking at commercial illustrations in a shopping catalog. His "savage" jungle visions were informed by the most cultivated aspects of Parisian consumer culture.
There's something deeply contemporary about this approach—this willingness to admit that imagination is always a collage, that creativity emerges from the recombination of existing elements rather than from some mystical wellspring of pure originality. Rousseau was essentially doing what every digital artist does now: working with found materials, remixing existing imagery, and being completely transparent about the process.
But maybe what made him radical wasn't just his honesty about sources—it was his complete indifference to the question of permission. Who gets to decide what counts as legitimate? What's the difference between being trained and being true? Rousseau claimed he needed "no other teacher than nature," but looking through his work, you start to suspect his real teacher was something even more fundamental: an unshakeable belief that his vision mattered, regardless of what anyone else thought about his qualifications to have one.
His first four paintings, exhibited at the Salon des Indépendants in 1886, were like nothing anyone had seen. Carnival Evening, his debut work, shows two figures in costume wandering through a moonlit forest. The trees are rendered with the obsessive detail of someone who's never been told that backgrounds should recede into soft focus. Every leaf is distinct, every branch precisely delineated. It's the painting of someone who thinks everything in the frame deserves equal attention—a fundamentally democratic approach to image-making that would later influence everyone from the Surrealists to contemporary folk artists.
The critics noticed, but not in the way artists usually hope to be noticed. "Nothing can give you an idea of the naivety and the clumsiness of this ex-customs officer," wrote one reviewer. Another suggested that Rousseau might be suffering from some form of mental impairment.
But when the art establishment mocked him—calling his work "naive," dismissing his technique—he just... kept painting. Not with the defiance of someone trying to prove a point, but with the quiet certainty of someone who knew exactly what they're doing, even if they couldn’t articulate it in the language the gatekeepers demanded.
Consider his self-portrait, Myself—a painting he kept updating throughout his life, adding details like a living document. His wives' names, a ribbon from when he became a drawing teacher, world flags on a ship in the background. Critics hated it, they called it delusional, couldn't categorize it as proper portraiture or landscape. I call it the ultimate act of self-mythology, the courage to see yourself as the protagonist of your own story even when everyone else has cast you as comic relief.
When critics sarcastically suggested he should "take out a patent" on the portrait-landscape concept, Rousseau didn't get the joke—or maybe he got it perfectly and chose to ignore the sarcasm. He responded by proudly claiming it as his genuine artistic invention, describing himself as "the inventor of the portrait landscape" with the seriousness of someone announcing a scientific discovery. This wasn't naive self-aggrandizement—it was an accurate assessment of his contribution to pictorial language, a hybrid form that treated personal identity as inseparable from environment.
That confidence feels almost foreign now. He didn't wait for permission. He didn't apologize for his technique. He didn't let the critics' voices become louder than his own inner compass.
And the critics were brutal. They called his work primitive, childlike, compared it to cave paintings—meant as insults, though now they read like prophecy. Rather than internalize the critiques, he glued the reviews into his scrapbook like they were badges of honor. His scrapbook contained everything: newspaper clippings, reviews, critical commentary from his 1886 debut through his death in 1910. This wasn't masochism; this was an artist who viewed criticism as part of his artistic journey, documenting ridicule alongside praise with equal systematic attention.
By preserving the bad reviews alongside the good ones, he was creating a complete portrait of reception, suggesting that both praise and condemnation were simply different forms of attention. There was something almost curatorial about his approach, as if he understood that someday these reviews would tell a story about more than just his work—they'd document the blindness of his era, the way institutions miss what's happening right in front of them.
I think about this when I'm spiraling about putting my own work out into the world, when that voice in my head starts cataloging all the ways I'm not qualified. What if criticism isn't a verdict but just another form of documentation? What if the fact that someone bothered to write about your work—even negatively—is evidence that you've created something that demands a response?
The connection to imposter syndrome feels almost too obvious, but maybe that's because it's so true. We've created this mythology around "earning" our place in creative spaces, as if inspiration requires a certificate of authenticity. Rousseau never got that certificate. He just painted. And now his work hangs in museums while countless "properly trained" artists from his era are forgotten.
There's something almost zen about Rousseau’s approach to criticism. He understood a thing most of us forget: you only get roasted if you're visible. You only get visible if you ship. Ergo, roasting equals evidence of life. If you're too fragile for ridicule, you're too fragile for resonance. His scrapbook of negative reviews wasn't self-torture—it was evidence that he was here, that he tried, that he refused to disappear quietly.
A refusal to let other people's opinions define the boundaries of what's possible for him. "Nothing makes me so happy as to observe nature and to paint what I see," he wrote, and you can feel the simplicity of that joy, the way it cuts through all the noise of critical opinion and academic respectability.
I think about his documented exchanges with other artists, how they reveal someone who understood exactly where he stood in art history. When Picasso told him they were the two great painters of their era, Rousseau didn't demur or deflect. He replied: "you are in the Egyptian style, I in the modern style." He saw himself as representing something genuinely new, something that belonged to the present moment rather than the classical past.
Look at Surprised! Tiger in a Tropical Storm, his first jungle painting. That wide-eyed tiger emerging from impossible grass, lightning fracturing the sky, rain falling in perfect diagonal lines. It's technically "wrong" in every way the academies would measure—the proportions, the perspective, the color choices. But it's also completely alive, charged with an energy that makes you believe in storms you've never weathered and tigers you've never feared.
When critics saw this painting in 1891, they said Rousseau painted "with his feet, with a blindfold over his eyes."
Meanwhile, while he was being mocked, and living in poverty nonetheless, Pablo Picasso was collecting his paintings. Kandinsky was studying his technique. The Surrealists were claiming him as a proto-member of their movement. The people who understood the future of art could see something in Rousseau that the gatekeepers missed entirely.
There's a lesson in there somewhere about the difference between being trained and being true. Rousseau's supposed naivety was actually a kind of wisdom—the wisdom of not knowing what you're "supposed" to do, so you just do what feels right.
One of the things I love most about Rousseau is how he built his jungles from fragments—children's books, zoo visits, botanical gardens. He was a handyman of dreams, assembling wonder from whatever was available. The Hungry Lion Throws Itself on the Antelope came from a diorama at Jardin des Plantes. He even wrote a caption for it, like a nature documentary narrator: "The hungry lion, throwing himself upon the antelope, devours him... Birds of prey have ripped out pieces of flesh from the poor animal that sheds a tear!"
There's something childlike about that caption, but also something profound. He's not just showing us violence; he's showing us the whole ecosystem of survival, the way beauty and brutality dance together in the same frame. The panther waiting his turn. The tear from the antelope. It's operatic and intimate at once.
Maybe that's what I'm really writing about—not just naivety, but the courage to be naive. The willingness to approach the world with fresh eyes, even when everyone around you insists you're seeing it wrong. In our age of expertise and specialization, there's something liberating about Rousseau's honesty, his refusal to perform knowledge he didn't possess. In that sense, naivety was his superpower—not his limitation.
Rousseau never painted like someone who needed to explain himself. He painted like someone who'd found a direct line to wonder, bypassing all the intermediary steps of artistic respectability. "I cannot now change my style, which I acquired, as you can imagine, by dint of stubborn work," he once wrote.
I keep thinking about that word: stubborn. We use it like it's a character flaw, but maybe stubbornness is just another word for faith. Faith in the thing you're making, faith in the voice inside your head that says this matters, even when—especially when—everyone else disagrees.
But I keep coming back to this idea of childlike wonder as a form of resistance. We've somehow convinced ourselves that growing up means killing off the part of us that sees tigers in clouds and jungles in houseplants. But what if that's backwards? What if the thing we call burnout is just misdirected awe, wonder that's been channeled into productivity metrics and performance reviews instead of the things that actually make us feel alive?
Picasso understood this. "Every child is an artist," he famously said. "The problem is how to remain an artist once we grow up."
But there's a deeper psychological element here. Picasso wanted to draw and paint like a child but believed his academic training had made that impossible. In Rousseau, he found someone who had somehow maintained direct access to that childlike vision while developing the technical skill to render it convincingly. Rousseau represented a kind of artistic ideal: the union of sophisticated technique with unselfconscious expression.
Picasso threw a banquet for Rousseau in 1908 at Le Bateau-Lavoir—an event attended by Guillaume Apollinaire, Jean Metzinger, Juan Gris, Leo and Gertrude Stein, Daniel-Henri Kahnweiler, and Robert Delaunay. American poet John Malcolm Brinnin called it "one of the most notable social events of the twentieth century." This wasn't patronizing curiosity—this was genuine recognition and mutual respect.
Here’s the thing about credentials: they're lagging indicators. Vision is a leading one. Rousseau died in poverty in 1910, still mocked by critics, still dismissed by the establishment. He never got to see his vindication, never got to know that his stubborn faith in his own vision would outlast all the academically trained artists who looked down on him. But his friends and fellow artists came together to promote his legacy, and eventually the world caught up to what they already knew.
Rousseau’s influence spread far and wide. Sylvia Plath wrote about his paintings with the reverence of someone who understood their emotional landscape. In her poem "Yadwigha, on a Red Couch, Among Lilies," she captured something essential about his vision: "The tigers are in the greenery, the green- / ery is in the tigers. The tiger- / lilies are orange, the orange / tigers are in the greenery." She saw what he saw—the way reality and dream collapse into each other, the way the impossible becomes inevitable when you're brave enough to paint it.
Joni Mitchell felt it too. Her song "The Jungle Line" opens with the line "Rousseau walks on trumpet paths" and builds into this meditation on civilization and wildness, order and chaos. She understood that Rousseau's jungles weren't just landscapes—they were psychological territories, maps of the unconscious rendered in impossible greens and electric blues.
What both Mitchell and Plath recognized was that Rousseau had developed a visual vocabulary for psychological states that had previously been the exclusive domain of literature and music. His paintings functioned like songs or poems—not attempting to document external reality but to make internal experience visible and shareable.
The Surrealists claimed him as a proto-member of their movement, recognizing in his work the same commitment to dream logic that would define their aesthetic. André Breton called him a "proto-Surrealist," and you can see why—there's something about The Dream (cover image), with its nude figure surrounded by impossible flora, that feels like it was painted directly from the unconscious, bypassing all the usual filters of artistic propriety.
But what I didn't know before researching deeper is the sheer scope of what Rousseau created. His 323 documented works span far beyond those jungle paintings I'd always associated with him. There's Chair Factory (1897), which documents French industrial life with the same meticulous attention he gave to his imaginary tigers. There's War (1894), his most violent composition, born from Franco-Prussian War trauma—a painting so raw it makes you understand that his supposed innocence was actually a choice, a deliberate decision to see beauty where others saw only brutality.
Furthermore, Rousseau had developed a revolutionary mixed medium approach, combining protein-based tempera with oil paint. This hybrid technique created unique visual effects that remained partially soluble even after 100+ years. His systematic working method involved methodical layering from background to foreground, using over 50 different shades of green in jungle paintings. This wasn't primitive technique—this was sophisticated innovation born from economic constraints and creative problem-solving.
The uniform illumination that characterizes his work—the way everything appears to be lit by the same sourceless light—wasn't the result of not understanding traditional chiaroscuro. It was a deliberate choice that created what critics have called "crystalline clarity," a visual effect that makes his paintings feel both completely artificial and intensely real.
His documented statements reveal a complex artistic philosophy that went far beyond his famous "nature is my teacher" declaration. "The happiest is the person who suffers the least pain; most miserable the ones who enjoy the least pleasure" and "When I go out into the countryside and see the sun and the green and everything flowering, I say to myself 'Yes indeed, all that belongs to me!'" These statements reveal an artist who viewed creative expression as fundamental to human happiness and claimed ownership of natural beauty through artistic interpretation.
When someone questioned him about painting a couch in a jungle, he responded: "Because one has a right to paint one's dreams."
That line stops me every time. Because one has a right to paint one's dreams. Not an obligation, not a privilege earned through years of study, but a right—something fundamental and inalienable. There's something deeply political about that statement, an insistence that imagination belongs to everyone, not just those who've been granted institutional permission to exercise it.
So how did such a ham-fisted bungler—to use the critics' phrase—become a celebrity of modern art? Maybe because he understood something the rest of us have forgotten: that dreams don't require visas, that imagination is its own form of experience, that the worlds we create in our minds are as valid as the ones we inhabit with our bodies. His jungles have the widescreen impact of movies, charged with mystery and allure precisely because they don't try to hide their sources.
Rousseau's scrapbook becomes a manifesto of creative persistence, his mixed medium technique a model for artistic innovation, and his relationship with the avant-garde proof that genuine artistic vision transcends academic training.
In our age of endless credentialism and professional gatekeeping, there's something revolutionary about Rousseau's approach. He didn't wait for permission. He didn't apologize for his technique. He didn't let the critics' voices become louder than his own inner compass. He just painted what he saw when he closed his eyes, and somehow, in doing so, he painted the future.
And maybe that's the real art of not giving a f*ck what “they” think—not aggressive defiance, but gentle persistence. The quiet certainty that your imagination is valid, your vision is worth pursuing, your voice deserves to be heard. Even if—especially if—you're the only one who believes it at first.
The audacity of dreams, it turns out, is just another word for hope. And sometimes hope is all that stands between ridicule and legacy, between the toll booth and the museum wall, between the person you are and the person you're brave enough to become. Sometimes the greatest act of rebellion is simply showing up as yourself, painting your impossible jungles, and trusting that somewhere, someone will recognize the truth in what you're trying to say.
This is why I love substack. Reading this felt like walking through a museum.
This beautifully written piece is a keeper. Love it.