Miller's post has some merit. I think he is right about outsider art not having a clear identity in some arts fields. Why? It's necessary to first of all admit that the market has much to do with our identity of various genres in the arts. In most arts fields, the multiple genres have well established markets. They are not outsider but are in fact insider niche genres. In the visual arts, the "mainstream" has been so thoroughly identified as including its own antagonists that it's difficult to find any outsider work. But it exists on the supposedly completely non-institutional art practiced by those who have no knowledge of art, art history, the art market, and all the sophisticated production/reception strategies of the art world. Nothing really comparable exists in the other arts, probably because they are performative and, as said, a developed genre rooted in at least basic skills exists for every likely possibility. In the visual arts, whoever can scribble can be titled an artist and no skill sets are mandatory. But above this I think it's the market forces that keep alive an artificial outsider concept in the visual arts. Even as I write this there are folks combing the backcountry in Alabama and Utah looking for the hermit loner who paints and draws or assembles scrap metal, etc. not for art, which the hermit has never heard of, but for some spiritual purpose or because it's just fun. There have always been such people, and their hunters, but it is especially difficult today to be convinced that such people exist anywhere. The goal of finding these outsider non-artists is money. Big money. Huge amounts of money, mostly without any investment costs. Go find a fellow who paints pictures of his chickens with their manure on feed sacks because he wants to immortalize their souls and but it for cans of chewing tobacco and you have a chance to make serious money if you market the stuff to the right people in mainstream galleries. You can't do that with a "discovered" art school artist, no matter how nutty the work is. That artist already knows about the market and how to play it.
The other thing about outsider art is the political correctness of the term. There used to be art of the insane, naive art, primitive art, untrained art, and maybe a few more. But now it's all outsider art, which is a cynical way of saying it can be insider art. One thin g all this stuff has in common is a quirky chaqrm. But it almost never grows or develops in artistic ways. Insane art is all the same once you get past its novelty and weirdness. Outsider art is all alike in many ways, quirky distortion, obsessive patterning, and Bible cliches. Bottom line: Outsider visual art exists because of those who see it as almost free money. WC --- On Mon, 10/20/08, Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Outsider artists > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, October 20, 2008, 10:38 AM > Is "outsider artist" a category currently > important anywhere outside the > visual arts? > > There's 758,000 hits on Google for "outsider > art" -- but only 68,000 for > "outsider music" -- and 1,700 for "outsider > poetry". > > There's also absolutely nothing listed as an > "anthology of outsider poetry" > --- or an "anthology of outsider music" -- > while there are many galleries > and exhibits that claim they are presenting outsider art. > > Any speculations on why this is the case ? > > It's especially relevant to Chicago -- because Henry > Darger is considered the > quintessential example of this category, and he currently > gets more hits on > Google than all other Chicago artist names combined. > > But he also wrote a 15,145 page fantasy novel, and I'm > really doubting anyone > has ever read every page -- it certainly has yet to be > published - and without > his bizarre illustrations - it would probably now rest in a > Chicago landfill > with all his other humble possessions. > > There used to be a small publisher called the > "Outsider Press" -- and they > printed the work of some now famous writers like Keroac and > Bukowski --but > that seems to have remained a phenomenon of the 1960's. > > Perhaps the importance of outsiderness in the visual arts > is connected to the > enduring ideology of the perpetual avant garde - the need > to be > "constantly redefining what art is, and that each > redefinition requires new > criteria, new ways of seeing" > > > It now appears that the worlds of high-brow literature and > music have already > abandoned that severe requirement -- or when it is > attempted - it's only > recognized as such when only done by highly trained > insiders. (there's no more > Moondogs in classical music) > > But for some reason -- the interest in "outsider > art" is still going strong. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Be a professional. Click here to earn a psychology degree. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijnep4D3857LTClKa6lqubx16 > bPwfvtF1MRLwmOr5imQHPcSg/
