William's post has some merit - especially the bottom line: "Outsider visual
art exists because of those who see it as almost free money."

The dealer in the visual arts performs a much different role than the
publisher in literature or the producer in theater and recorded music.

All those other business people have to serve a much larger and anonymous
market of customers -- while the dealer only has to serve a few - although
that few must be well known and the higher the status the better.

"Outsider art" does seem to be an ambitious dealer's wet dream --but I fail to
see how it's much different from the  category of "contemporary art" -- where
the distinction between art and garbage can only be determined by the
dealer-guided marketplace. (i.e. no other standards need apply)

Which is not to say that the successful dealer has not earned his money
through hard work, taking risks, and making good or lucky decisions.

I go to an "outsider art fair" at the Merchandise Mart every year in Chicago
-- and mostly the prices there are very low. So to cover expenses, the volume
must be high, even if the margin of profit  is astronomical.

The real money gets made in contemporary art -- where the only distinction
between the $14 million dollar Basquiat or Dubuffet and the worthless
scribblings of a child is the location of the wall on which it's been hung.

(BTW --thanks to the omniscience of Wikipedia - I've just learned that:
"Dubuffet coined the term Art Brut (outsider art) for art produced by
non-professionals working outside aesthetic norms, such as art by mental
patients, prisoners, and children")








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
_____________________________________________________________
Domain Registration - Click Here
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijmVlOgD6bW9JBfljyQWYPlQI
MNXd1JxsvfbJlP3R7nsv0oII/?count=1234567890

Reply via email to