What does “outsider artist” even mean? (2012)
hyperallergic.com
hyperallergic.com
Art has been transformed from something that attempts to convey meaning and emotion, despite subjectivity and reliance on shared language specific to one's own culture, to a fetishization of an artwork's background narrative. ie the process (this particular painting of a square, that looks like every other uniform square painting, was done by doing xyz therefore it's different) and background story of the artist or artwork (this one was painted by a blind nun from some oppressed country). The artwork itself is meaningless save for the narrative surrounding it. It's impossible to understand or experience anything when looking at the artwork, but the background text next to it elucidates the narrative.
That's why "outsider art" is hilarious to me. In many cases it's totally accidental art, or a pisstake: see, comedy shows bringing random objects, like dustbins or fire hydrants, into galleries.. cue dozens of thoughtful onlookers - or even unrepentant shit. But the fetishization of narrative elevates it to mainstream acceptance (despite the artist not being in the cool kids' club). And conversely, in other cases, outsiders are the only ones actually making art in the first place, because everyone else on the inside is too busy trying to score it big by adhering to trends.
Consider outsider music. It's outsider because it weird and usually lacks something in execution, e.g. recording quality.
For example:
Pictures of something that existed in the past, but was destroyed. Or someone who died. Or a younger portrait of someone.
Pictures that differ from reality, such as putting together two famous buildings that actually exist in different cities, near-equator stuff covered by snow, scenes containing objects with incorrect size... Or impossible structures, like Escher did, only more realistically.
Science fiction, fantasy, fairy tales...
Painting a "realistic" dragon requires skills, and cannot be replaced by photography. Why don't modern artists show their skills at this?
Pierre Bourdieu does as decent job as any in breaking down the social topology of class, but his legacy is fraught with his failure to sufficiently account for many economic phenomena that are constantly becoming more clear. It’s hard to elaborat on these in short. The case study of outsider art is a useful case study both in defense of and in objection to Bourdieu’s comprehensions of social class.
The insistence on a distinction so classist as “outsider art” is just another shameful depravity in the name of maintaining a VIP zone for the bourgeois in a world of mass media. Let’s remember “the art world” didn’t exist until the 90s.
This clearly will affect an artist's perception of themselves depending on what level of success they obtain for themselves.
Source: a self professed, so called 'tortured artist'. Unsuccessful in the arts by choice, but still affected by the stigma as a computer scientist. Change culture: solve problems -> make more of them.
The idea of ignoring in-group games of meaning and status, instead creating works entirely from playful self-expression, is so alien it is best left outside.
The semi-inclusion by "relegating these creators to special art ghetto" is just a sort of aquarium to interact with selected, but not accepted artists, to be ogled in their foreignness and endowed with platitudes of "how creative they are".
Outsider artists should all be given a stipend for materials on the completion of their 100th piece, at which point it just comes back to the basic income discussion.
Tax the robots.
Edit: Of course, at some uncalculated cost to high-growth innovation investment opportunities. Because greater-good is a tricky balance.
Edit: My original answer was unclear and too brief for someone.
A clearer answer is that outsider artists, as generally identified by profound social marginalization, typically resulting from mental illnesses, are statistically almost never able to support themselves on art-making.
Programs exist for the mentally ill, yet it would be a hard case to make that these are sufficient for creating quality of life such that everyone suffering in that category, and who would rather be making art as a primary occupation, can support themselves and live independently (provided that is a goal) on art making income.
But like many causes, money for this cause is harder to come by than it could be in the wealthiest nation in the world.
Extracting money, not currently available, from the least creative of workers to support creative work and fulfilling lives for "outsider artists" and all others on the margins of the modern economy seems to me a kind of fair play.
That's the point of art. To tell an idea to someone who needs it. If you tax it and expect it to work like everything else does, it can't do that.
Maybe for some people, but art for me has always been about expressing myself. I've never created anything for someone else's enjoyment. If someone happens to enjoy it, okay then, but it's my feelings on the canvas, not my interpretation of what you need to see on the canvas.
But it's too late for me to edit now.
Edit: Removed "RTFA"
Now (just kidding, I have always done this) I take my dumb dumb issues out on the internet at strangers based on the salience of their perspectives which seems to be diametrically opposite to the conclusions I've come to, clearly this is a selection bias in information and I'm making too many assumptions about you.
The last piece of art I made was a picture of a body that was supposed to be me understanding myself. Clearly this has been challenging for me as I find myself completely unable to create new art, besides code, which requires me to think clearly and logically and simply about everything.
Not to mention the consequences of how understanding myself may affect others. Having empathy for the feelings of those around you is really hard when you have to think about yourself first.
Obviously I am terrible at doing this on the internet because I don't know who I'm talking to. We all project our issues through our personal experiences and beliefs we hold onto. Sometimes that changes my mind, sometimes it changes yours. Art, everything, yay, the world is still boring because I am a boring person with no magic or mystery in my life, sparse connections that bind me to individuals through concrete understandings.
I don't need to RTFA. There don't have to be rules on the internet. If I need to RTFA you need to read everything that came before the article that created the article. But you don't, because you are replying to the article, and the author may be here, but you wouldn't be aware of that, so you operate on the assumption that you don't have to read everything that led up to the article, just the article itself, perpetuating dogmatic ideologies that secure your world view.
That's insulting to me, so sorry! I have opinions on stuff sometimes!
Some people have talent and aren't as lucky as you. Don't squash them like bugs just because its disruptive. Maybe you need therapy.
Wyatt Cenac has a good piece on culture clash.
> The last piece of art I made was a picture of a body that was supposed to be me understanding myself.
I hope you didn't kill somebody and photograph them, but it's not entirely clear you aren't a serial killer from your description, and I thought I'd just put this here in case anything happens to me. Again, you read me wrong. We have a lot more in common than you seem to think.
My apologies if I read you wrong, that was not my intention. Words like robot to describe artists, mental illness, disenfranchisement, etc. Connections. We all have buttons. Easier to just call it aspergers.
I think the key takeaway, if any from postmodernism, is that categorisations are never as objective as we'd like. Language is made up, and the points don't matter.
What even is art?
> my favourite software is Carrara by DAZ 3D. I also use Poser7 from Smithmicro/content paradise and iClone from Reallusion