On Classification
Having offered the above artists as profound examples of outsider art, it is important to acknowledge that, despite the disparate circumstances responsible for the private origins of their work, all three cases, Darger, Scott and Rizzoli, must be viewed in relation to the fine art tradition. It is, after all, the collectors, the galleries, and ultimately the museums that have come to define the very notion of the outsider artist, subsequently shaping public response to their work. This said, the art establishment, as is its nature, has made many attempts to define and compartmentalize non-mainstream production. While the terms ‘naive’ or ‘popular painting’ remain specific to certain politicized, egalitarian ideals of the first half of the century, distinctions such as ‘folk,’ ‘art brut,’ and ‘self-taught’ remain in pervasive use. Often employed as sweeping generalizations in the service of critical agendas, these labels tend to forego accuracy for the sake of convenience. When applied to the outsider in particular, they tend to undermine the importance of the artists and the strength of their work by denying them the distinct individuality and extreme inventiveness that sets them apart in the first place.
This consequence becomes blatant when the misappropriation of the term ‘folk art’ is examined. For the purpose of this argument, Roger Cardinal lays out an excellent definition of the ‘folk’ tradition in his essay The Self in Self-Taught Art. Defining folk art as a “communal medium of cultural interchange,†whereby “recognizable visual ideas, patterns, and standards†are passed down in the form of learned technique, Cardinal places great emphasis on the shared aesthetic values that arise from common experience (Cardinal 2001:69). Because folk art is “firmly rooted in [the] traditions†of a given community, Cardinal continues, it “tends to be consistent†with the evolution of that community, “so that there is never a sensation of dramatic rupture with inherited practices†(Cardinal ibid.). Folk art, then, may be said to be reflective of a group’s social identity, rather than that of the individual. Even if the maker of a specific example is known, the folk object still exudes a certain anonymity in its conformity to collective ideas and tastes. In this manner folk art closely parallels popular art, in that it is originally intended to gain the immediate acceptance of its contemporaries. In fact, folk art may be seen as historicized popular art, made “acceptable, charming, [and] collectible†by the passage of time (Russell 2001:14).
How, then, can a comfortable association be made between folk art and outsider art? Admittedly, Henry Darger used the materials and methods of popular culture in his photo enlargements and tracings of comic book and newspaper clippings, and he may have sought to echo shared sentiments regarding religion and war. Without a doubt Judith Scott’s craft is the product of a transmission between the artist and her facilitators at Creative Growth. Even the work of Rizzoli, divinely inspired and tinged with psychosis, rests squarely on the acquired techniques of the draftsman and the long-standing principles of architecture. Where these artists take a bold turn away from the collective is in the application of that which they have absorbed from their surroundings. All three have managed a decisive and irreversible break from the expectations of tradition. Unlike popular or folk art, an overwhelming sense of dramatic rupture is what may be said to be the single defining and unifying element of outsider art, wrenching it from any historical context and rendering comparison nearly impossible. In light of this, it becomes extremely confusing when the American Folk Art Museum, clearly committed to the preservation and exhibition of Henry Darger’s work, chooses to include his work in its Contemporary Center, or the American Folk Art Society schedules a visit for its members to Judith Scott’s studio during an annual conference (Browne and Oppenhimer 2004:8).
Likewise, the term ‘art brut’ proves an uncomfortable alternative. Although the Collection de l’Art Brut, being a repository for major holdings by the likes of such artists as Aloise Corbaz (1886-1964), Madge Gill (1882-1961), and Augustin Lesage (1876-1954) has become somewhat synonymous with an “orthodoxy of the outsider art field,†art brut as a genre has lost much of its cultural relevance over time (Rhodes: 2000:23). As defined by Dubuffet, art brut was the product of a specific time and place, tapping into the Expressionists’ romantic occupation with primitivism and offering a brief aesthetic alternative to the increasing intellectualism of Europe’s avant-garde. Overlooking the suffering of the mentally ill in the name of artistic advancement, Dubuffet declared art brut and its creators free from cultural influence. While much of what may be considered outsider art, including the work of Darger and Scott, does indeed exude a disregard for mainstream approval, cultural influence (in the case of Rizzoli, cultural reference) abounds. In fact, the very notion of an art devoid of any cultural resonance is a questionable assertion, and has been retracted to some degree by the addition of the Collection Neuve Invention to the Collection de l‘Art Brut. Art brut, then, exists as a paradox in which its tenets “argue against culture from within culture†(Russell 2001:25). Best viewed as a well-intentioned but fundamentally flawed ideology, Dubuffet’s ideas are difficult to sustain beyond their historical context, rendering the Collection in Lausanne a static testament to a moment passed.
In contrast, outsider art continues to spontaneously manifest itself under highly variable and unpredictable circumstances. Recent attempts at classification have resulted in labels born of compromise. These terms, however convenient they may appear, are tied to specific examples and often fail to encompass a broad spectrum of individuals. Rather, to speak of outsider art is to acknowledge a relational distinction stemming from the perspective of the mainstream without placing specific expectations or restrictions on the work itself. Because it is unlike anything before or after, and because it lacks the distinct context and comparison that perpetuates the academic model, I would argue that the term be allowed to stand on its own beyond the confines of overly-compartmentalized genres and rigid classification.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.