Section II: On Terminology

As evidenced in the previous chapter, an ongoing fascination with non-mainstream aesthetics has distinctly marked the advent and evolution of the modernist agenda throughout the twentieth century. Parallel to the myriad appropriations of the avant garde, countless attempts have been made by both artists and scholars to identify and unite forms existing beyond dominant academic tradition, often employing ill-fitting and inappropriate terminology in the process. While certain unpalatable distinctions, the most offensive being ‘primitive’, have fallen from grace, others such as ‘folk’ and ‘self-taught’ continue to clutter the critical discourse. Having become disassociated over time from their original social and historical contexts by market-driven misappropriations and the mutability of postmodernism, these terms tend to do little more than spark charged reactions among those interested in the field.

While this multiplicity of jargon allows room for the recognition of a wealth of non-traditional visual production, it becomes increasingly difficult to speak of ‘idiosyncratic’ art in overarching terms without becoming bogged down by highly individualized, case-by-case deliberations. As a result, much of the study and public exhibition of this kind of art is aimed at establishing neatly compartmentalized, conveniently static categories. With the promotion of such far-reaching sub-genres as ‘naive’, ‘intuitive’, and ‘contemporary folk’, an overwhelming preoccupation with minutiae has become instrumental in the creation and perpetuation of a polemical debate that frequently escalates into outright “term warfare” (Kallir 2003:38). Sadly, these disputes tend to overshadow the artwork in question. All too often the content and expressive voice of a particular artwork is muted by the chatter of whether or not it reflects the narrow criteria of one genre or another: should a painting executed in house paint on salvaged metal by the Mississippi artist Mary T. Smith (1904-1995) be considered ‘vernacular’ based on its imagery and use of materials, or does its allegorical subject matter, combined with the evangelical convictions of its creator, elevate the status of the work to ‘visionary’ art?

Voicing her frustrations on the futility of such an argument, Tessa DeCarlo, a contributing art critic for the New York Times and Raw Vision, laments that “billions of keystrokes have been expended on topics such as [this]” (2002:24). Circular and without resolution, the debate over an established lexicon has become a distraction from the central issues pertaining to an art world beyond the mainstream. Rather than continue to struggle with the defense of definitive and unwavering categories (a project that tends to ignore its own highly subjective nature), DeCarlo suggests that the term ‘outsider art’ provides an accessible and useful compromise. When compared to the alternatives, ‘outsider’ functions to cut to the heart of the matter, acknowledging the biographical circumstances and unorthodox processes of its makers while simoultaneously emphasizing the artful qualities of a given work (DeCarlo 2002:24).

Perhaps it is precisely this ability to assert both the object and the individual that is responsible for the pervasive use of ‘outsider art’ as a kind of catchall for a wide range of non-academic expression. Admittedly, the term carries with it a degree of sensationalism, appealing to romanticized notions of `a life unfettered by social conventions and intellectual expectations. Images of the mad genius and visionary hermit inevitably come to mind, ingrained as they are as stock characters in a highly marketable pantheon of ‘outsiderness’. While there are certain individuals whose biographies may serve to re-enforce such stereotypes, it is ultimately more accurate to think of the creators of outsider art as simply those who make art indifferent to the typical workings of the art world, i.e. intellectual and aesthetic affiliations and dependency on the critical and financial response of the market (Danto 2001:63).

Once this distinction is made it becomes essential to ask what DeCarlo (2002:24) considers to be the “central question” at the core of any discussion pertaining to outsider art: how the work “make[s] sense as a separate art category.” Like mainstream art, it requires careful consideration of the artists’ intentions and the context in which they create. As is the case with any art object, aesthetic choices directly impact the overall effect of a given artist’s vision. How then, in light of these similarities, can outsider art be so far removed from the characteristics of the mainstream art world? In an attempt to address this elemental issue at length, the next three chapters will explore the work of individuals widely regarded as classic examples of the outsider paradigm. Concentrating on the epic creations of Henry Darger, the ground-breaking textile art of Judith Scott, and the other-worldly architectural renderings of A. G. Rizzoli, it is my intention to elucidate the elements of their highly individual output that mark them as true examples of outsider artists. With the following case studies I hope to offer reasonable justification for use of the term ‘outsider art’, while at the same time liberating them from the confines of overextended, and often erroneously applied distinctions.

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.