Outsider Artists

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

What are outsider artists and how does one become one?

― jel -- (jel), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 15:14 (twenty years ago)

too late

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 15:17 (twenty years ago)

http://www.rawvision.com/mainmenu.php

Also - anyone ever see that series of documentaries that Jarvis Cocker did on Outsider Art?

― NickB (NickB), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 15:20 (twenty years ago)

It's never too late RJG, oh it probably is.

― jel -- (jel), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 15:21 (twenty years ago)

the idea is that they are artists who work completely outside the normal world of art, either because they are seriously mentally ill (and not in the comedy way that typical artists are) or because they have day jobs as postmen and paint away in their attic and never exhibit their paintings or anything.

that is my understanding of outsider art.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 18:55 (twenty years ago)

I saw the Darger doc... pretty good, though I think they downplayed what a pervo-weirdo he was.

― andy --, Tuesday, 9 August 2005 19:18 (twenty years ago)

Outsider = any artist who does not have an MFA from Columbia or Yale and is discovered by people who do.

― Hurting (Hurting), Wednesday, 10 August 2005 03:03 (twenty years ago)

Hurting OTM

― Orbit (Orbit), Wednesday, 10 August 2005 04:18 (twenty years ago)

Actually my definition is a little too broad, because in practice it usually means artists that are either mentally disabled, insane, or "naive" enough in technique that the "insiders" who champion them can be condescending and at the same time pat themselves on the back for seeing beauty in such an unlikely place.

― Hurting (Hurting), Wednesday, 10 August 2005 04:40 (twenty years ago)

a friend of mine went to see the jeremy deller and alan kane collection of uk folk art at the barbican, and raved about it despite saying it was like 'tourism'

there is this uncomfortable 'the art world getting it's feet mucky with the proletariat' feeling about it, but that might be more the viewer's hang-ups more than anyone directly involved

i like these

http://artnet.com/Magazine/features/karlins/karlins6-13-05.asp

― david zteanZ, Wednesday, 10 August 2005 08:17 (twenty years ago)

I think the first definition I gave would better fit the term "folk artist" (which, apparently, includes outsider artists under its umbrella). I recently visited the Folk Art Museum in NYC, and my impression was that they kind of lump everything together that isn't getting shown in Chelsea galleries under one roof -- well-crafted furniture made by traditional artisans, quilts from poor southern black towns, extremely skilled but odd paintings by "unschooled" artists (which is a very slippery term, since many of these people could have learned from book or from a grade or high school teacher), completely unskilled paintings that looked like they were done by children, works by the mentally disturbed or retarded, and even a work by an advanced degree-holding artist who was "working with folk mediums" or some shit like that.

I'm all for expanding the boundaries of what gets shown as "art," and I think museums like this do more good than harm. But there's something I really dislike about the way it's all exhibited -- it's like they're saying they respect the work as art but they don't REALLY respect it. All kinds of completely different stuff gets thrown together in the same room under vague themes like "self and subject," -- they'd never do that with, say, Duccio, Picasso, Renoir, Goya and John Curran.

― Hurting (Hurting), Wednesday, 10 August 2005 14:46 (twenty years ago)

four years pass...

"folk art" is definitely broader than (and includes) "outsider art." not sure about this tho:

Actually my definition is a little too broad, because in practice it usually means artists that are either mentally disabled, insane, or "naive" enough in technique that the "insiders" who champion them can be condescending and at the same time pat themselves on the back for seeing beauty in such an unlikely place.

first, many of the "champions" aren't really "insiders," at least not insiders with much more power than the artists themselves (i don't think that small, off-the-beaten-path galleries featuring "folk" or "outsider" artists constitute "insiders" as you're using the term). second, i'm not sure that the appeal of "folk" or "outsider" art is necessarily based on it's "beauty," at least in the conventional sense of the word "beauty." a lot of the "outsider art" i've seen (and "outsider art" is sort of a lousy term itself) is a lot of things -- jarring, thought-provoking, edgy, disorienting, dense, funny -- but often not "beautiful." fwiw, i've been looking at some contemporary art lately (pieces accepted into the art basel show vs. some of the "outsider art" that isn't in the show, but is featured in local expos running alongside art basel), and overall, i much prefer the "outsider art."

― Daniel, Esq., Sunday, 25 April 2010 03:33 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.amazon.com/Mingering-Mike-Dori-Hadar/dp/156898569X

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/36388/the-return-of-the-magnificent-mingering

― curmudgeon, Monday, 26 April 2010 00:13 (sixteen years ago)

yea, i love mingering mike. his emusic selects disc is outstanding.

― Daniel, Esq., Monday, 26 April 2010 01:30 (sixteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.