Introduction

Following its introduction in 1972 by the British art historian Roger Cardinal, the notion of ‘outsider art’ has been subject to equally passionate waves of acceptance and opposition. For some, the term continues to serve as useful critical shorthand effectively encompassing a wide range of unconventional artistic production, including work by autodidacts, religious visionaries, the mentally ill, and a host of obsessive personalities. For others, to label someone an ‘outsider artist’ is frequently seen as a gesture of restriction that places these individuals, already alienated by their wildly divergent artistic practices, into aesthetic ghettos. Despite the ongoing and often circular debate over the appropriateness of these views, it must be acknowledged that they share a common belief in the existence of an eclectic visual record beyond the orthodoxy of ‘high art’. Like it or not, each of these perspectives is premised on the perceived dichotomy of that which stands firmly within the realm of academically oriented visual culture, and that which has been barred, for whatever reason, from wholesale acceptance into this rarefied territory. In the end a division remains between art that is ‘inside’ and art that remains ‘outside’— an awkward distinction at best, but one that is impossible to ignore.

Loved or loathed, this binary appraisal of outsider art remains pervasive, permeating critical discussions within both museums and the marketplace. The amount of published material addressing the subject continues to grow, with each scholarly endeavor flanked by enough glossed monographs to make your coffee table [and bank account] tremble. Even a quick search on the Internet reveals the degree to which outsider art has seized the public imagination, with links ranging from announcements for the next Outsider Art Fair in New York City to personal web logs documenting collections of anonymous scribblings salvaged from garage sales and street corners. Clearly, use of the term outsider art is here to stay. But what, exactly, does it mean? As outlined below, this will be the central question explored in this thesis.

Inexact by nature, establishing a fixed and authoritative definition of outsider art as a unified genre is a daunting task. Because the term does not refer to any overarching movement typical to the Hegelian, art-historical model, to speak of outsider art is to refer to one element in the creation of a higly personalized and individualistic visual account of the world, thus spotlighting a singular shared trait in an otherwise vast and disparate spectrum of object and image making. Outsider art is not oriented within a unified aesthetic or theoretical foundation in which shared cultural assumptions inform all aspects of the artistic process, from invention to eventual dissemination. Often the product of individuals who are socially marginalized either through total immersion in a fantastic perception of an inner world, or by circumstantial factors such as age, educational and economic disadvantage or pyshical disability, outsider art is typified by both the striking prevelance of self-referential visual language and a marked independence from overt influence by the codified conventions of market-sanctioned art.

This is not to say, however, that all artists to whom the label ‘outsider’ may be applied operate in ignorance of their cultural surroundings. As with any effective artist, outsiders too must demonstrate the ability to select from their particular cultural context those elements and methods that best express their personal statements while simultaneously satisfying emotional and intellectual needs. In the case of outsider art this selection process, informed by neither formal training nor the justification of theoretical presupposition, is characteristically shaped by intuitive virtuosity and typified by the free expression of inner voice. Extremely personal, outsider art tends to radiate a primacy of singular perception and elemental expression brought together by the compulsive manipulation of the materials at hand.

Rarely, if ever, is the work of the outsider created with the motivating intention of ensuring its place within a canonical order, nor is it aimed to appease the whims of the marketplace. Outsider art is not the product of self-conscious dabbling in alternative expressive strategies, nor does it constitute a formulaic approach in which an artist labors to convey the much sought-after commodities of originality and authenticity. In comparison, outsider art is the occupation (in many cases, the preoccupation) of a lifetime spent in search of transcendent means by which to overcome adversity and alienation. Whereas a great deal of mainstream art provides a kind of recreational outlet for the intellect, the outsider tends to engage in the construction of an entire cosmology. Driven by emotional necessity, these artists become, in essence, architects of what John MacGregor, a scholar in the field identifies as a “vast and encyclopedically rich alternate world, not as art, but as a place to live in over the course of a lifetime” (Rhodes 2000:104).

As assured as these criteria may appear, without the strong evidence of unified convention or tradition it is tempting to forego any real effort to bring together such a myriad of tenuous associations under the shelter of a singular and seemingly superficial label. When addressing work by the likes of Martin Ramirez (1895-1963), a Mexican American who spent the later half of his life institutionalized due to crippling schizophrenia, or the creations of J. B. Murry (1908-1988), a farmer from Georgia who felt that his calligraphic renderings contained revelations received directly from God, the forging of cohesive and relevant comparisons is easily dismissed as a project whose difficulty is only overshadowed by its uselessness. Indeed, given such unique and intensely personal visions, it would seem to make sense to allow these creations to drift alone beyond the margins of the mainstream where their inherent discord carries little gravity and poses no threat to the implicit ordering of high art’s status quo.

Despite this initial inclination to disregard these works as curiosities and contradictions to accepted artistic tradition, it must be acknowledged that it is precisely this reaction to their “radical otherness” that binds these marginalized artists to one another (Russell 2001:21). Viewed in contrast to long-established assumptions regarding the role of art, artists, and the transmission of dominant values, outsider art may be understood as a genre born of negation. By separating the outsiders from predominant cultural, creative and aesthetic standards, they have been incorporated by default into an alternate, composite cultural framework that demands recognition on the strength of its productions and in deference to the sheer volume of its participants.

This said, the question is begged: how do we, a critical audience, go about looking at, and speaking of outsider art in a way that honors the desires and intentions of its creators? Put another way, how do we approach the task of respectfully examining outsider art from the unavoidable position of insiders? In the following study, I will explore these issues at length, first by delineating a historical precedent for the occurrence and evolution of the public’s awareness and perception of outsider art, then through a careful examination of the terminology employed in the discussion of art existing beyond the boundaries of academic tradition. Finally, I will identify four useful curatorial models by which outsider art may be successfully contextualized within the museum environment with the intention of ensuring engaged public interaction and invested stewardship in the preservation of outsider materials.

Posted by admin on April 6th, 2007 | Filed in outsider art | Comment now »

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.