Charles Lewis Art - California

What’s in a Name: what is an Outsider Artist?

Since I’ve already gnawed on Naïve Art, why not take on an even more vague term – Outsider Art?  In the voluminous literature on the subject, one immediately encounters several threads: what is outsider art?; how is it different than other related art forms like naïve, folk, etc.; what is “authentic” outsider art?; what is the value of the artists story? What is its relation to the commercial market?

First, where does the name “outsider” come from?

“In the 1940s, French artist Jean Dubuffet coined the term Art Brut, which literally translates to “raw art,” to classify artwork free from the cultural and artistic influences of society. Dubuffet specifically studied the work of institutionalized mental patients. Roughly thirty years later, Roger Cardinal, an American Art Critic and Professor introduced the term Outsider Art, which was originally intended to act as an English equivalent to Dubuffet’s Art Brut.

 The label Outsider Art, however, has come to be a generic term haphazardly used to describe any untrained artist. It usually connotes a particular biography for the artists as well, whether it’s insane, recluse, abused, religious obsessive, or all of the above. Other terms such as Naive, Marginal, Primitive, Self-taught, Folk, Visionary, and Intuitive have been used as sub-categories for as well as synonyms of Outsider Art.” [Katie Kurcz: Outsider Art, the Field, and the Market: http://www.saic.edu/pdf/degrees/pdf_files/aap/2007_Katie_Kurcz.pdf]

“He [Debuffet] formed the Compagnie de l'Art Brut in 1948, giving birth to what would be known as the Dubuffet concept of Art Brut and one that is strictly adhered to today by many, particularly the powerful museum in Laussane, which has amassed the Dubuffet collection. In fact, it is claimed by the curators at Laussane that they, and only they, have the authority to designate a work of art as being truly Art Brut, ie: works that are in their "raw" state, unaffected by cultural and artistic influences and which bear no relation to developments in contemporary art; works that are the innovative and powerful expressions of a wide range of individuals from a variety of backgrounds…. One thing is indisputable - art brut and outsider art are universally accepted as one and the same.” [Audrey Regan-The Coming In of Outsider Art, http://www.art-is-life.com/outsider_regan.htm]

Comment: The academics are in charge of nomenclature, and they battle to defend their chosen turf. However, outside of art writers, museum people and critics, I don’t know anyone who would necessarily lump Art Brut and Outsider art together. Art Brut is static, Outsider Art is anything but. However, if we change the terms of the debate to equate Outsider with Self-Taught, things look different.

Self-Taught Art

"The United States did not establish art schools until the late 19th century, and so the distinction between academic and non-academic art was less meaningful here than it had been to the European avant-garde in the early years of the 20th century. Due to America's distance from the European academies, our young nation had a much richer tradition of historical folk and self-taught art than was common in the Old World. It was therefore never clear whether our modern self-taught artists were simply extending the practices of their 19th-century predecessors, or belonged in an entirely different category.

The field of self-taught art is essentially a modernist construct. Nonetheless, over the course of the 1940s, the American art establishment gradually withdrew from the field of self-taught art, choosing instead to throw its full weight behind Abstract Expressionism. The arbiters of taste came to perceive a rift between "naive art" (which was eminently accessible to a broad range of people) and the nascent American avant garde (whose work was difficult, and hence judged artistically superior).

On the one hand, there were those who used the word "outsider" as though it were a synonym for "self-taught”. On the other hand, as the "outsider" label began to gain advocates among collectors and dealers,there were those who focused on biography almost to the exclusion of all else. ."[Self-Taught Art in the 20th Century: A Brief History, Galerie St. Etienne, New York; http://www.gseart.com/outsider.html]

"Despite, or perhaps because of, their humble democratic roots, mid-century American art critics were particularly dismissive of "low brow" culture. All draw from an open-ended panoply of visual resources, and all must be judged, ultimately, by the same standards. It is time for self-taught artists to move out of the ghetto and be recognized as equals."[They Taught Themselves: American Self-Taught Painters Between the World Wars, Galerie St. Etienne, New York]
 

Comment: The phrase ‘Self-Taught’ is a mild perjorative in the art world, much like a fond rebuke to a wayward child. I once read a quote attributed to some famous artist (can’t remember who), which said, “Painting can be learned, but it cannot be taught.” We tend to distinguish between technique, which is a primary function of the academy, and originality, which surely isn’t. I personally distrust any artist who isn’t at least somewhat self-taught. But if you want a career in the art world, better follow the rules, kiddies, and that means an MFA.

So here we encounter the issue of Biographical Authenticity

"Outsider art is not determined as much by the artwork itself as by the set of circumstances that were present in the life of the artist when the art was made. Once the outsider artist is "discovered", he can no longer be classified as one who creates art for his own use, for he is now sharing his art with the public. He can no longer be described as one who is unaware of the art being made by others as he is now a part of the very art world he once knew nothing about and will be influenced by it."  [Audrey Regan-The Coming In of Outsider Art]

"What about the authenticity problems of Outsider Art? Collectors, dealers, and supporters of Outsider Art are drawn to it because of its rawness of emotion. It is often asserted that the work of self-taught artists is more “authentic” than work by artists in the mainstream because it’s unaffected by outside influence. It is the authenticity factor that adds value to this work in the art market. This claim necessitates that the biographies of the artists must be included with the selling of artworks in order to justify their authenticity, unlike in the business of contemporary art. Instead, the identity of the artist holds equal or even more importance than the art itself. Collectors of contemporary art buy for the name, but not – typically – for the story. In contrast, in self-taught art few in either ‘camp’ --the biographical or the aesthetic – would deny the value of the other. The more off-the-wall a story, often the higher the price."[Katie Kurcz: Outsider Art, the Field, and the Market:

Comment: As a self-taught artist (who rejects the appellation), I think this is purest academic and marketing bunk. Since most gallery types would have trouble explaining to a buyer where almost any work of art fits in terms of art-speak, if it’s not really obvious, they resort to the artist bio as a kind of substitute for an opinion of quality. “He was an alcoholic bum who died in the gutter, so his art is totally authentic…..” Using a bio (at least half of which is probably made up or embellished) as a substitute for the art is crap. With this aspect alone, you can see the impoverishment of the debate and frequent idiocy of the mainstream art culture as defined by non-artists.

Commercialization and Dialogue with the art world

"Dubuffet's idea of an art untainted by "received culture" is the same holy grail sought by the original modernists in Rousseau and his American counterparts. Fuzzy concepts like "innocence" and "purity" act as a shield for lapses in quality and at the same time prevent the work of the better artists from being studied as rigorously as it should be. These concepts keep self-taught artists in a cultural ghetto."[Jane Kallir, They Taught Themselves: American Self-Taught Painters Between the World Wars, Galerie St. Etienne, New York]
 

"Mainstream artists are, by definition, active participants in an ongoing art-world dialogue conducted in partnership with dealers, collectors, critics, curators, art historians and other artists. Self-taught or Outsider artists, however, are incapable of taking part in that dialogue, and therefore enter the discussion not of their own volition, but solely at the election of the other participants. Very often the selection criteria used by these choosers has more to do with the choosers' own agenda than with the maker's original intentions.

The field of self-taught art was constructed in early twentieth-century Europe. The myth of absolute originality was shaken every time it was revealed that a self-taught artist had been influenced by an outside source. The myth of purity crumbled almost as soon as an artist was discovered and taken into the evil commercial marketplace." [(Jane Kallir, "European Self-Taught Art: Brut or Naïve?" (Galerie St. Etienne, 2000)  http://www.petulloartcollection.org/history/article.cfm?n_id=14)]

Comment : Let’s take the literal meaning of Outsider Art to mean an artist that works and creates outside, or on the margins of the conventional art world. You know, the art world of money, in which artists just manufacture the product. Frankly, I doubt that the literally millions of outsider artists, whether amateur or professional or somewhere in between, are totally cut off from the art world. Artistic ‘purity’ is a marketing gimmick of the academics and galleries. I suspect that the great majority of outsider artists visit galleries, read art mags, go to museums, and generally participate in the greater art culture whenever possible, even if they can’t manage to get shows or be taken seriously. What they don’t have much contact with is the commercial side of the art world. Does that make them outsiders?

Not having to produce “what sells” gives an artist a huge creative freedom. Have you ever been in a gallery show and seen twenty of what look like variations on one painting? That’s how galleries like it, and the artist can crank out lots of pictures assembly-line fashion, but its death to the creative impulse. “Okay,” the artist says to himself, “today I’ll paint the clouds in these 20 pictures. Tomorrow I’ll do the mountains…..”

Being an outsider artist, of course, doesn’t mean their art is any good. Quality is another issue altogether. And who can really say what good is? When I look at a Van Gogh, as I recently did at the de Young Museum in San Francisco, I can’t but think of the poor dude, knowing beyond a doubt in his own mind that his paintings were just really damn good, and not being able sell one to save his life. His obsession drove him, not the [lack of] positive reinforcement he got from the art people of his day. Vincent was the ultimate outsider artist (even though he had formal art training and tried to penetrate the Paris art world) – he even had the mental illness to go with Debuffet’s view of Art Brut. Today, Van Gogh has been transmuted into the ultimate mainstream artist, with his images on every conceivable object, from mugs and placemats to shower curtains. Can’t you just see Van Gogh and Gauguin cruising around France, making weird pictures nobody wanted, just for the love of it? Outsiders, for sure.