there is currently an exhibit up at The Frances Lehman Loeb Art Center at Vassar College titled Faith and Fantasy in Outsider Art from the Permanent Collection. I haven't seen it yet, but i would like to. this got me thinking about Outsider art in general. I usually like that type of art, but I really don't like the term. i feel like there is something misleading or at least lacking in the terminology. it seems like this art is embraced (mostly after the artists' deaths) as a sort of novelty. a fascination turned appreciation that seems to me to be a little bit condescending.
i understand that there is a need in the art world to label everything, but why must art made by outsiders be labeled as such? there is no such thing as "insider art." if an "outsider" is making art that is then displayed and commodified by art institutions, doesn't that automatically make them an insider? i mean, isn't everyone an outsider in the art world until they do something that gets them attention from the powers that be? and if the person getting that attention happens to be a reclusive zealot, or a mental patient, isn't their acceptance the same as that of an artist with an MFA?
creative people create, regardless of background or inspiration. art is art. am i wrong?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hell yeah, k. the business end and consumption of art always seems to serve such strange ends that rarely justify the means. sometimes the means don't exist, like the case of an artist dying or art of the mentally ill being considered outsider art and being lorded over with little mind paid to its creators. some despicable stuff, i think.
ReplyDelete