Although it has not yet reached the highs achieved by auctions of ‘mainstream’ art, the monetary value of ‘outsider art’ is creeping up. This blog is written in light of the recent Christie’s auction of outsider art from the William Louis-Dreyfus Foundation which took place earlier this month.
(more…)Tag: outsider art
-
Art competitions and their barriers
As my research continues, I have been looking at the notion of the art ‘competition.’ More specifically, I have been looking at the barriers that surround these competitions; focusing on the application and selection processes.
In many parts of our lives, we are encouraged to fit into an already existing and established ‘box.’ This box, if you will, has been made by and for people who already exist in privileged positions. As Penny Jane Burke and Jackie McManus note in a 2011 article for Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education:
“Inclusion often works as a disciplinary technology to ‘include those who are excluded into the dominant framework/state of being, rather than challenging existing inequalities within the mainstream system, or encouraging alternative ways of being.”[1]
Although writing about inequalities in the application process for art courses at universities in the UK, many of the points made by Burke and McManus also relate to the application and selection process integral to many art competitions. The steps of any application process are almost seen as necessary – and they tend not to be questioned. To be in for a chance to win, you must apply, and to apply, you must follow the rules. And those who win deserve to win because they have earned it. They have been voted the best of the rest, and that result is the correct result because the system is the system and it works.
Burke and McManus note that “meritocracy is premised on the belief that all individuals who work hard, and have the prerequisite ability, can succeed within a fair and democratic system.” However, they continue by saying that what is not taken into account here is that this idea “does not address differential social positions and power relations, which provide some social groups with greater access to the valuable cultural and material resources necessary to ‘play the game’ and succeed.”[2]
There is so much assumption placed in an application process. Assumption that the applicant will know what is being assessed, assumption about who might apply, and an assumption that the applicant will be able to easily follow the application process. This is especially important to note when many competitions come with a hefty application process and more often than not, a hefty entry fee too. In essence we are asking people to spend a lot of time and money that they may not have on entering something where they really have no way of knowing their possibility of success.
In their 2000 article, Nachoem M. Wijnberg and Gerda Gemser identified three basic types of selection system; “market selection, peer selection, and expert selection.”[3] They explain these types of selection system in the following ways:
“In the case of market selection, the producers are the selected and the consumers are the selectors. In peer selection, on the other hand, the selectors and the selected are part of the same group. In the case of expert selection, the selectors are neither producers nor consumers, but have the power to shape selection by virtue of specialized knowledge and distinctive abilities.”[4]
Traditionally, peer selection was the predominant method of selection – think of the Salons and Academies where artists rose through the ranks and were responsible for selecting newer, emerging artists for exhibition. However, in more recent years, expert selection has become the favoured method. This shift has happened due to several factors, but the most pivotal is perhaps the emergence of dealers who have necessitated the assistance of art critics to bring attention to their chosen art or artists. Eventually, Wijnberg and Gemser note, “the modern art museums would also begin to exhibit works by artists in the same group in order to highlight current trends, thus supporting the efforts of both the ideological dealers and the art critics.”[5]
The issue with all three selection methods is that the “value of most cultural products is generally hard to ascertain, in part because the standards to be used for this purpose are seldom clear and rarely obvious.”[6] Therefore, Wijnberg and Gemser highlight that:
“An innovation attains value only if it is considered valuable by the selectors that control a given selection system. This may lead to serious problems for art that contains innovations that are not valued within an existing selection system. In many instances, therefore, art that is innovative will only be successful if the innovators that champion it succeed in changing the ways in which value is determined. This often means changing the selection system itself.”[7]
The issue here is that existing processes mean that value-based judgements made by selectors can only be subjective, and therefore an artist’s success in a competition format depends heavily on the aesthetic taste of the ‘judging panel.’ So, this is one issue with the art competition format.
Interestingly, in Burke and McManus’ research into the admissions process for UK arts courses, they found that the “’worthy’ student seems to be associated with the ‘unusual’ and the processes of creativity that involve risk-taking and invention (characteristics historically associated with the white, euro-centric forms of masculinity).”[8] We are asking applicants to jump through hoops that have been created by a certain group, and therefore, will innately be more accessible for that same certain group.
Burke and McManus suggest a critical approach for selectors. There needs to be a sense of “critical reflexivity, to interrogate the ways that their decisions might be shaped by exclusive values and perspectives, which profoundly influence how candidates are (or are not) recognized as having talent, ability, and potential.”[9] But I don’t think we just need selectors to be more critical, I think the selectors of the selectors need to be more critical. It is no good simply trying to mould and coach someone to fit our existing expectations. We need to evaluate and change the existing inequitable systems.
I would be really keen to hear from you about your experiences of entering an art competition. How did you find the application process? Was it a good experience? Was it a bad one? Please do feel free to comment below, or drop me an email: kdoutsiderart@yahoo.com.
References
[1] Penny Jane Burke and Jackie McManus, ‘Art for a few: exclusions and misrecognitions in higher education admissions practices,’ in Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, Vol. 32, No. 5, 2011, pp 699 – 712, p 700
[2] Op. Cit., p 701-702
[3] Nachoem M. Wijnberg and Gerda Gemser, ‘Adding Value to Innovation: Impressionism and the Transformation of the Selection System in Visual Arts,’ in Organization Science, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2000, pp 323 – 329, p 323
[4] Op. Cit., p 324
[5] Op. Cit., p 327
[6] Op. Cit., p 323-324
[7] Op. Cit., p 324
[8] Burke and McManus, Op. Cit., p 706
[9] Op. Cit., p 710
-
Artist Showcase: Thomas Riesner
The latest showcase comes from Thomas Riesner – please note, the text has been translated to English from German.
Soul Worlds 1 My interest in art started in 1990 in a club for mentally ill people. The club is called Durchblick e.v. in Leipzig. It is a gallery and a museum.
Radiation 5 I don’t have a starting point for my works of art. That might sound a bit strange. I just start painting. Everything arises from the subconscious. Actually, my own mind and soul influence me and music and films also influence me more often.
Infection 1 I hope that the viewer will see what I don’t see.
Virus 2 The term outsider art doesn’t bother me.
Fixierung 2 I’m working on a drawing and the moment and I hope that I will keep painting and drawing.
Radiation 4 
Soul Worlds 3 
Balljungs 
Radiation 6 
Fixierung 5 
Infection 2 
Spielen 1 
Soul Worlds 2 Click here to see more of Thomas’ work
-
Discovering Outsider Art: The Narrative of Otherness
Recently, I have been returning to the classic texts of outsider art in an attempt to uncover where the marginalisation of this type of work really began. My research has uncovered a few key areas that illustrate how ingrained the idea of ‘otherness’ and ‘us’ and ‘them’ is when it comes to outsider art and the artists who create it. This marginalisation and imbalance of power is so embedded in the culture of outsider art; in how it emerged, in how it is described, and in how it is valued, that it is difficult to move past its history and look towards a new, integrated outsider art that enjoys the same reverie as works that are readily welcomed into the cultural mainstream.
Drew Davies, Mr Roger My research has first led me to explore the emergence of outsider art. And here, already, we can see structural power imbalance at play. If we think back to the key developments in the emergence of outsider art, we see a pattern; outsider artists being ‘discovered’ by those already in positions of influence and power.
The first major – and most obvious – example is Jean Dubuffet and his coining of the term Art Brut. The story of Dubuffet and his support for Art Brut is an excellent illustration of how the system works. Dubuffet, for a start, was already an accepted part of the cultural mainstream. He was an artist in his own right; a disillusioned one, albeit, but accepted nonetheless. It was his position on the ‘inside’ that enabled him to throw caution to the wind and leave the mainstream for a world of raw and unfettered creativity. This example speaks to sociologist Howard Becker’s idea of the Maverick artist; an artist who has already achieved acclaim and acceptance within the mainstream who then goes it alone, creating more daring and outrageous work. Becker uses Duchamp as his key example, but Dubuffet equally fits the mould in his search for something different and other. The idea being that you have to already be on the inside to make real change – and to get noticed for it.
Jack Oliver, Ratfink Now Dubuffet’s name is inextricably linked with Art Brut and outsider art forever more. In his position as the creator of Art Brut, Dubuffet held – and still holds – all of the power. Often, it is not the artists whose names we recall when we talk about the category of outsider art, but Dubuffet’s name; he is now the father of this genre.
Like Dubuffet, there were other European artists who before the First World War were becoming disillusioned with the art world. They were dissatisfied with culture and society as a whole and were looking for something more authentic. It is these artists we see looking for inspiration in other communities, countries and continents – think Picasso and his intrigue with the primitive, or Kandinsky and his fascination with art made by children. It is similar to how the middle classes now seek authenticity in other cultures through travel. But still, it is a search for the other, a search for something different. This directly relates to a number of European artists becoming interested in the art of psychiatric patients following the publication of Hans Prinzhorn’s Artistry of the Mentally Ill in 1922. They were looking for something other, and they found it here, in the work of those who were removed both physically and socially from the worlds of these mainstream artists.
Cloud Parliament, I’d Like To Be Shod There is a history of this type of dissatisfaction amongst mainstream artists. But, almost always, their new and shocking work eventually becomes accepted as ‘progress’ and is welcomed into our historical canon – for example Surrealism, Expressionism, Fauvism, Cubism. This, however, has not been the same for outsider art. It has remained on the outside, a parallel running alongside the canon of the twentieth century mainstream.
Aside from artists already in acclaimed positions within the mainstream, we also have psychiatrists and medical professionals to thank for the emergence of the category of outsider art; particulary, of course, the work of psychiatric patients. I have mentioned Hans Prinzhorn already; psychiatrist, art historian and founder of the Prinzhorn Collection, but there are numerous others including Walter Morgenthaler, Dr Paul Gaston Meunier, Dr Charles Ladame. Whether we agree with the sharing of work by patients in psychiatric hospitals (with the issues of ethics and consent that come with it), what is at the core of this side of the emergence of outsider art is vulnerable artists being presented to the world by medical professionals. Again, people who already hold some kind of societal influence.
Robert Haggerty The third group that emerged during my research is arts professionals who hold some clout in the art world. Ultimately, it is curators, collectors, dealers and directors who shape the canon, and therefore the possibility of acclaim, celebration – and even just visibility – lies at their door. In his 2011 book ‘Groundwaters: a century of art by self-taught and outsider artists,’ Charles Russell tells the story of Alfred Barr, the first director of MoMA. Barr was in fact a great believer in the value of outsider and untrained art, organising a number of exhibitions that showed his support. His vision, however, was not matched by MoMA’s board of trustees, and Barr was consequently removed from the position of director. Although he remained employed in the collections department, MoMA has shown very little support for untrained art ever since. Here, we have the perfect example of how powerful people can change the course of history. Who knows what kind of art world we might be experiencing today if the work of untrained and outsider artists had garnered more support from MoMA’s trustees at the time.
So, even just the way outsider art has emerged as a field is made up of unequal power dynamics and issues of otherness. It is no wonder then, that there is difficulty in encouraging those inside the mainstream to see this work in the same light as trained artists. There is such a strong history of marginalisation here, right from the very beginning, and what is most apparent is that in this display of ‘us’ and ‘them,’ what we most desperately need are the voices of the outsider artists themselves.
As always, I’d love to hear your thoughts. You can post them in the comments below, or email kdoutsiderart@yahoo.com. Thanks for reading!
-
Artist Showcase: Drew Davies
In this artist showcase, we bring you the expressive, characterful work of Drew Davies.
Drew Davies, Mr Fizzy Drink When did your interest in art/creating begin?
Since I was a kid. Painting and making things used to really give me a buzz.
As I got older and had more responsibilities I drifted away from being creative and have just recently got back into it.
Drew Davies, Mr Little Boy Blue What is your starting point for each piece?
I like to watch people, so that is usually where it starts. I’m interested in everyday people, the ones that just go about their business without fanfare. For me, I always see something in them that ignites an idea. I’ll chew that over in my mind for a week or so then start a piece by spreading paint across the surface. I don’t have any preconceived ideas of how they will be represented, I like that to just come through the work as naturally and honestly as possible.
Drew Davies, Mr Roger Who/what influences your work?
The process influences my work. It’s a lovely therapy for me.
Drew Davies, Mr Shuffles What do you hope the viewer gets from your work?
A smile would be good and maybe they recognise something of themselves in the work, something honest, a connection to the everyday.
Drew Davies, Mr Cry Me A River What do you think about the term Outsider Art? Is there a term that you think works better?
I think it’s a very apt description.
Drew Davies, Mrs Front Seat What are you working on at the moment?
Three Italian women who walk past my window every morning (very early) who talk really loud. Can’t see it yet but hopefully they will emerge.
Where do you see your work taking you in the future?
I’d like to be able to paint and make enough money to survive frugally but I don’t have very good people skills to be able to push my work, so I’m happy to paint when I can and keep exploring the process.
Click here to visit Drew Davies’ website
-
Artist Showcase: Moontain
The latest artist showcase highlights the work and life of Moontain.
Moontain, TITANOMACHIA When did your interest in art/creating begin?
It’s always complicated to put a precise date on something that is more related to growing roots than a formal decision. I believe we all are interested in creating, it starts with the first thought, the first imaginary world, our feelings, then, we have the choice to expand it into this reality or not, and I always chose to expand them so it becomes my reality. For as long as I can remember, everything, from a stick of wood in the garden to a musical instrument, have been a subject to creation and expression. Art is just one of the many ways to practice an active thought, and it really started to be serious when I was a teenager, like many people, except that I never stopped.
Moontain, THE PATH OF LIFE What is your starting point for each piece?
A sort of “call” (from the canvas, stone, wood, vibe etc.)… The intuition that something is already here, just hidden in the dimension of “becoming”. It’s not really an improvisation, but rather a cooperation, full of trust, into the ethereal and the unconscious worlds. Something guides the details and moves allowing the whole to be, I observe it as much as I assist it. The pleasure comes with the meaning revealing itself, and since I’m sensitive to synchronicities as a channel of the consciousness, I’m very interested in the interpretation, information and knowledge coming out of it. Very often, discovering characters, frames in the artwork, makes me think of x or y stories, and once I’m looking for a title or an aphorism to go with it, I find connections between already existing myths and the work in front of me. It is a special feeling, to realize, no matter the time or space, it seems that a universal Source is shared eternally with every life’s forms.
Moontain, AURORA Who/what influences your work?
Influences obviously come from different levels; sensitivity, impregnation, experiences, tastes and feeling. Also, it can be the shadow of a plant caressing a stone or a ray of sun designing a line on the canvas. But mostly, it’s about Pareidolia. It’s the ultimate guide for my work. From a chaotic display of colours or forms, entities are waiting to be discovered and guessed. In the end, what influences me is the initial vibration, no matter where it comes from, it’s filled with the original flow, where nothing is good or bad, just a matter to renew your experience of this existence and go forward.
Moontain, FLOTS DES AMES (Flood of Souls) What do you hope the viewer gets from your work?
I do not have a specific “hope” concerning what people can get from the work, because it’s up to each viewer to interpret it, with his/her own personal story. That being said, I have a wish, which would be to see the viewer peacefully let go of his/her tendency to automatically connect what they see, with what they once saw. This way, it would allow them to start a journey into some unknown areas of their mind. As they say, if you want to change the world, change the way you look at it. This is how we can renew our self, the answer, and the question itself.
In my works, at first sight, you can think it’s only a sort of accumulation of forms, but if you take the time to dive into it, you discover an abundance of lives, if you dive even deeper, you notice they’re all interconnected, dependent on each other to exist. The lesson to share would be that through a conscious observation of details animating this whole we live in, you can start to grasp the secret of an harmonious way of life. Ultimately, it gives a notion of infinite respect for every incarnation (ethereal, mineral, flora and fauna …) as they all allow us to be.
Moontain, SEMENTIS What do you think about the term Outsider Art? Is there a term that you think works better?
I guess people need a word to put on something so they feel reassured. I don’t really care about it. As a French person, I kinda liked this word, the way it sounds, but I don’t think it’s the best way to describe this kind of art. Because it just comes right from the inside of a Soul, and if it’s outside of something, it’s only of soulless components of a society. Aspiration of creation is to reveal how things are all intertwined, not separated, so there must be a better word I guess, but words are not always required to share a message anyway.
Moontain, LES PORTEUR D’AMES (Ark of Souls) What are you working on at the moment?
I always have many artworks in progress (some are waiting for months, we mature in parallel before we meet again). At the moment I’m focusing on sculptures. I like the connection I find in a stone, because it’s so linked with (out of) Time, it comes from a very ancient past, it has seen so many Earth’s events, and hopefully will continue to do so in the future. This organic interaction carries some authentic vibrations, which is relieving, it has a deep meaning to me… in a perfect world we would sculpt caves, mountains, just like the winds and rivers do, and would write each other stories.
Moontain, DREAMANTRA Where do you see your work taking you in the future?
I don’t see a specific place or state… in arts or in life in general, it’s all about becoming the best version of our self. Hopefully both follow this path of a better understanding and self-development. To transform limits into potential, interactions into changes and being a part of a needed evolution considering the urgency the planet is in right now. This is even more important than simply making artworks, it’s about reminding people (and myself) why we are experiencing this existence, if not for more consciousness, positive echoes feeding a virtuous circle, then it’d mean nothing.
To visit Moontain’s website, please click here.
-
The Conditions of Success?
Recently, whilst undertaking some research around the role of the critic and what makes artists ‘successful’ in the art world, I came across a transcription of a lecture given by Sir Alan Bowness, Art Historian and Director of Tate (1980-1988), at the University of London in 1989. The talk centred on the idea of artistic achievement, and was titled The Conditions of Success: How the Modern Artist Rises to Fame.
Bill Traylor, Man and Large Dog, Smithsonian Institute In the text, Bowness outlines his idea that there are four steps that lead to an artist achieving recognition and success in the art world. What I found most interesting about this quite rigid ‘how-to’ guide is how little room for success it leaves for those who are not able to complete one of the steps. This, of course, ties into my interests around what continues to separate so-called outsider art from the cultural mainstream.
Early on in the lecture, Bowness asserts that “there is a clear and regular progression towards artistic success. There are,” he says, “in my view, conditions of success, which can be exactly described. And success is conditioned, in an almost deterministic way. Artistic fame is predictable.” These ‘conditions of success’ revolve around the idea of recognition. Recognition from whom, and when this occurs during the artist’s career.
The first condition is peer recognition, and Bowness quite boldly claims that this initial type of recognition is “at first a matter of personality as much as it is of achievement.” He goes on to speak about his discovery of David Hockney during the 1960 annual exhibition of the London Group (Hockney at that time being a 22 year old first year student at the Royal College of Art): “it was quite obvious to… a thirty year old art historian/critic like myself that here was an exceptional talent.”
Aloise Corbaz My immediate issue with this condition is that it first requires the artist to already be rotating in artistic circles and communities. This is generally not the case for artists who are considered to be working outside of the mainstream. It is a condition that relies heavily on an artist having travelled the traditional route – art school, formal and informal networking, student exhibitions, etc. Some of the most well-known outsider artists (think Bill Traylor), did not start creating work until much later in life, and many lived or had lived lives on the outskirts of artistic communities and therefore outside of the possibility of any form of peer critique.
My second issue is that this also requires the artist to have a peer group that is already well established in the art world – or at least one that in some way already holds some kind of esteem. It relies on networks created at some of the most prestigious art schools in the world. Networks that include artists and creatives who already have some kind of influence or sway. This is something that not all aspiring artists are privy to. My final point on this condition is that not all of those we now see as ‘outsider artists’ (for want of a better phrase) originally saw themselves as artists or makers. How then, without even seeing themselves in this way, would they be able to integrate into these important artistic circles and achieve peer recognition?
Adolf Wolfli The second condition that Bowness claims illustrates that someone is on the right path to success is recognition from those who write and talk about art. He notes that “the writer has two important functions: the first is to help create the verbal language that allows us to talk about art… The second… his contribution to the critical debate.” This condition comes, of course, with issues relating to the role of the critic, which I have written about at some length in previous posts. Who are these critics, and what gives them the power to recognise some people as artists, but not others?
The third condition for success is the recognition of patrons and collectors. Now, this where these conditions begin to become a little inextricable. They become tied to one another, and it becomes increasingly more tiresome to differentiate between the influence-r and the influence-d. Those who write about art (the critics, the curators), undoubtedly influence what sort of art prestigious collectors and patrons will buy and sponsor, and likewise, collectors and patrons with power and authority in the art world will have a hefty load of influence over which artists are celebrated by critics and exhibited by curators.
The final stage – the pinnacle – that artists must reach and ‘complete’ is that of being recognised by the public. This, Bowness claims, is what shows that an artist really has become ‘famous.’ To me, this is an interesting idea. From my previous posts – (one example here, and another here) – it seems almost to go without saying that the previous conditions for success will have a huge impact on whether an artist reaches this stage. Without some kind of celebration or support from critics, curators, or collectors and patrons, an artist will struggle to have their work seen by the public. And if the public can’t see the work, how can they possibly judge whether it is a success or not? It is apparent that an artist cannot skip a step on Bowness’ staircase to public acclaim and fame.
Scottie Wilson, Geometric Face 3 Bowness does talk about the psychological and socio-economic factors that can impede the artist’s journey to success. These factors, he ascertains, play a huge part in whether an artist really can make it to the top. For example, neither Van Gogh, whose mental health issues became a huge barrier, or Gauguin, who simply could not be in the right place at the right time, achieved acclaim or success in their lifetime. This says a lot about the journey for outsider artists – historical and contemporary – who in many different ways continue to come up against psychological or societal factors that will impede their success. What if they can’t afford – or simply aren’t able to – relocate to a big city where there is a vibrant artistic community? Does this mean that fame is just simply not within their reach?
Another of Bowness’ statements does not sit well in relation to the work of outsiders. He says that:
“The creative act is a unique and personal one, but it cannot exist in isolation. I do not believe that any great art has been produced in a non-competitive situation: on the contrary it is the fiercely competitive environment in which the young artist finds himself that drives him to excel.”
This, of course, raises many questions about the very nature of outsider art, much of which is created in isolation, and is not created as part of a competitive relationship with peers. I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement from Bowness. I think it relegates the act of making art – something so unique and innately human – to a formulaic, almost business-like endeavour.
Madge Gill, Untitled But it is Bowness’ final statement in the text that I struggle with the most. He states that “to imagine that there are unrecognized geniuses working away in isolation somewhere, waiting to be discovered, is simply not credible. Great art doesn’t happen like that.”
From my experience, this is exactly how great art happens. Perhaps the artist is not hidden away, hiding in isolation, but they simply have not been discovered yet. Maybe there are not even trying to be discovered. I think it is naïve to think that we all already know the greatest artists and the greatest art that has ever existed. To think that the best art is already publicly available – we already know where it is, who’s made it, where it’s being made, why it’s being made. I think this simply cannot be true. Think how many people are out there now, all over the world, making art – not for any specific audience, not for any specific purpose, but making, nonetheless. And to think that we cannot consider that to be ‘good’ or ‘successful’ art because it has not already been recognized (by peers, by critics, by collectors, and by the public), just seems to me incredibly absurd.
Bowness’ conditions of success once again outline the rigid, self-feeding system that epitomises large parts of the mainstream art world. Each condition depends on the previous, and all are working in each other’s best interests. This is just one of many examples highlighting how exclusive the art world is as a system. It leaves little room for success for those who are not already on the inside.
-
Artist Showcase: Miguel Angel
This latest artist showcase shares the life and work of Miguel Angel.
When did your interest in art/creating begin?
My interest began as a child; I liked to draw.
What is your starting point for each piece?
My starting point is surrealism, pop art and sometimes extravagant haute couture attires applied mainly to furry fandom.
Who/what influences your work?
My influence mainly comes from the costumes of designers like Alexander McQueen, or Galliano. Or from works of art like Romero Britto or Anthony Ausgang, and in the furry fandom artists like tamias6, paco panda, bitterkeit, jacato – among many many others!!
What do you hope the viewer gets from your work?
I like when the spectator finds my drawings strange, entertaining and funny – that causes joy and sometimes irony.
What do you think about the term Outsider Art? Is there a term that you think works better?
I see that this term applies to the art of those who did not have artistic academic training, or are naive. I am not sure about that, since it has expanded a lot and it is already art almost anything. In my case, what I do is for a more specific audience like Furry Fandom, but at the same time I want to take this art out of the niche.
What are you working on at the moment?
At this time I upload my work to my page of illustrations “Floky el caballito.” I will also resume an exhibition that I had planned for a long time ago about messenger pigeons that become smartphones so as not to feel relegated with technology.
Where do you see your work taking you in the future?
I don’t know yet, I have a lot of uncertainty about it.
-
Outsider Art and the Art Critic
Over the past couple of months, I have been trawling through reviews of outsider art exhibitions published in the UK national press. It has been an interesting exercise, returning to some of the exhibitions I have visited over the past 10 years; this time, with my researcher’s head on. After diving into several of these reviews – most of which focused on the Wellcome Collection’s Souzou: Outsider Art From Japan, the Hayward Gallery’s Alternative Guide to the Universe and the Whitechapel’s Inner Worlds Outside, I started putting together a list of words and phrases that kept cropping up; words that actually seem a little out of place in a review of an art exhibition.
Lee Godie, Black Haired Woman, courtesy of ArtNet Mysterious, disturbing, criminal, eccentric, alienated, troubled, miserable, painful, tragic, psychosis, obsessive, chaotic, unhinged, imbecile, insane, lunatic, depressing, ranting, desperation, relentlessly garbled, utterly ridiculous, lost touch with reality.
The above are just a few of the words and phrases that jumped out at me. It’s not the most positive list, but this kind of sets the tone, as you can imagine, for what these exhibition reviews included. This emotive and, quite frankly, dramatic language is not uncommon when it comes to literature associated with outsider art exhibitions – whether that is in the press, in exhibition catalogues, or alongside the art in the exhibition space. This led me down a bit of a worm hole, thinking about the role of the art critic in representing outsider art to the wider public.
As I have mentioned before, we don’t teach our students about outsider art (in the UK, anyway) when they enroll on an art history course at any level, and usually, when a friend or family member asks what it is I’m researching and I answer with ‘outsider art,’ the majority of people look very puzzled. Actually, I was once asked if outsider art meant art that was created outdoors. But this puzzlement is understandable – the general public never hear about this work, and for the most part, many of even the most well-known outsider artists are only really known within the outsider art field. Because of this, we rely heavily on what we read about outsider art; from curators, from historians, and from critics. And because the work is, for the most part, pretty unknown, the language these curators, historians and critics use can be dramatic – or even voyeuristic to some extent. Human beings love hearing about the ‘weird and the wonderful,’ and they love hearing about people who aren’t like them (just think about the fascination a large part of society has with watching Netflix documentaries about serial killers). So this is what the critics play upon.
Martin Ramirez, courtesy of ArtNet When writing about outsider art, critics have an extra bonus in that the majority of (certainly the ‘traditional’) outsider artists did not consider their work to be ‘art’, and therefore did not write or talk much about it themselves. This means the critic is able to imbue their own views onto this work, and, particularly with the national newspapers, reach much wider art and non-art audiences. This kind of power and freedom (no fear of reprisal from the artists) is no doubt a factor in the overdramatising of this type of work. It is important to consider the role of the curator in this story too. Critics need some to pin their review on; something to ‘appraise against’; a theme or a narrative. Many exhibitions of outsider art are group shows lumping together anyone and everyone who might fit comfortably (or uncomfortably) under that spacious umbrella. So critics are left to review disparate works and people, finding common themes where they can; and this common theme is often health or disability.
The role of the critic in the wider art world is also paramount here. The art world is a market system, and there are people who run the system for their own or others’ gain. Critics are just a small cog in this wider network of sales, exhibitions, and fame. A small, but important cog. Critics are self-imposed definers of taste. They say what’s good and what’s not good, and, much of the time, their views will be plumped up by ulterior motives. I have mentioned Howard Becker and his sociological views about art in previous posts. He talks a lot about the theory of reputation, and how reputations (of artists, and of works), “develop through a process of consensus building in the relevant art world.” He also notes that “the theory of reputation says that reputations are based on works. But, in fact, the reputations of artists, works, and the rest result from the collective activity of art worlds.”[1]
Marcel Storr, courtesy of Artforyum I found a nice quote by critic Laurence Alloway, which I’d like to finish with. He nicely summarises what he thinks the role of the critic should and shouldn’t involve:
“I think art criticism should be part of the communication system of a mass society, not elite-dominated, not reduced to a single tradition, and certainly not possessing any absolute value.” [2]
References
[1] Becker, Howard. S., Art Worlds, University of California Press, 2008
[2] Kalina, Richard, Imagining the Present: Context, Content and the Role of the Critic, Routledge, 2006
-
Artist Showcase: Robert Haggerty
The latest artist showcase comes from Robert Haggerty. If you would like to have your work featured on the site, please send an email to kdoutsiderart@yahoo.com.
“Art is the conscious making of numinous objects.” K. J. Bishop
“As an artist, I engage the grotesque in pursuit of the numinous. Sometimes I think of myself as an archaeologist digging in the bogs of the unconscious, other times as a child convinced that the coat hanging on the door is the boogieman. To evoke the numinous, I use common detritus, discarded plastic bags and dead branches. For my pallet I use the colors of the underworld: the black of dry gangrene and tar, the brown of mud and shit, the white of bone and maggot, the grey of clay and ash. For me a work is finished only when it feels haunted.”
When did your interest in art/creating begin?
My mother introduced me to molding clay and the possibilities of cardboard and Quaker Oats boxes before I went off to school. When I began a second career, teaching Art at an Early Childhood Center, I realized that I was now doing professional what my Mom did instinctively.
What is your starting point for each piece?
The starting point for my work occurs in my praxis or it doesn’t occur at all. When heated, plastic bags expand, contract, congeal and curl. This malleability permits spontaneous images, especially faces, to emerge. Such images are my starting points.
What do you hope the viewer gets from your work?
Simply put, an epiphany. While working on a piece there comes a moment when I can go no further, a moment when the work stares back in its naked wonder and I am left dumbfounded and baffled. I want the viewer to experience that moment, to stop in his or her tracks, startled.
What do you think of the term Outsider Art?
The term covers a broad range of styles and subjects. For me, the question is, “where do I see myself on this spectrum.” When I think about Outsider Art, I see a Venn diagram with two overlapping circles, one representing Outsider Art, the other “Insider Art.” For me the overlap is the sweet spot.
What are you working on at the moment?
I’m working on a piece for a Local Arts Council Exhibition celebrating “The Day of the Dead,” the Mexican holiday when the souls of the departed are believed to walk the earth. For obvious reasons, I seldom participate in exhibitions with defined themes. But this one is too hard to resist.
Where do you see your work taking you in the future?
My work will evolve and change over time. At present, I’m content with what I’m doing and have no desire to go off in another direction. Hopefully, at some point I will acquire gallery representation.
Who/what influences your work?
Alberto Giacometti, “The subject of every work of Art is primordial.”
Paleolithic Venus Figurines, awe-inspiring and less than 10 inches high.
Tribal Art. The first time I saw a Kafigeledjo Oracle, the hair on the back of my neck stood up.
Bog Mummies and other naturally occurring numinous phenomena.
KDOA 