cLINT FISHER ART | //Design_Photo

Urban Outsider Artists Evoke Society’s Margins

The New York Times put out an article about Swoon today, in conjuction with Barry McGee. It’s a write up about the two showing at Deitch Projects. While the article is brief and on the surface complimentary and supportive, there is something that I took particular note of as it was mentioned from the Title and referenced in the text. This concept or idea of “Outsider Art and Outsider Artists”. This term has been around for quite a while now, and in a nutshell was coined in 1972 by an art critic named Roger Cardinal. His definition derived from Art Brut which was the concept of French artist and sculptor Jean Dubuffet.

“Those works created from solitude and from pure and authentic creative impulses - where the worries of competition, acclaim and social promotion do not interfere - are, because of these very facts, more precious than the productions of professions. After a certain familiarity with these flourishings of an exalted feverishness, live so fully and so intensely by their authors, we cannot avoid the feeling that in relation to these works, cultural art in its entirety appears to be the game of a futile society, a fallacious parade.” - Jean Dubuffet.

This explanation by Jean Dubuffet is to the point, and at the very heart of the process of creation, and how it stems from the artist, and lastly how the society around us interprets it. The american coinage of “Outsider Art” has a much larger and tremendously different connotation. Outsider Art can mean a wide variety of things and in this broad definition the term becomes a collection of generalizations. For example, on the one hand an Outsider Artist can be used to describe an Artist who has no formal Art Education, while on the other hand it can be used to describe Artists who are institutionalized and are completely introverted and withdrawn from society. In it’s most specific sense, it can be used to express art that is created from outside of the society’s mainstream. This later example is perhaps the initial meaning as derived from Art Brut.

I find myself guilty of using terms that I don’t like as well, things such as “Street Art”, or “Street Artist”. My use of these two specific terms however, is always in relation to the location of the actual art work, and not in reference to the societal classification of the artists themselves. The relationship between the art and the individual viewing it, is one of the essential elements of any visual dialogue. Art is created by many different individuals and for just as many reasons. Society has always been fascinated as well as irritated when they have tried to assimilate art or an artist, and have been unsuccessful. Throughout history there have been many artists and musicians and creatives in all areas that think independently and create from something within. This creation within sometimes manifests outwardly as an expression of an experience from the outside, or more specifically from society.

Many times these expressions aren’t Politically Correct, or in support of the status quo, yet they have such a powerful presence and honest transparency that they reach a tremendous amount of people. Once that takes place labels enter in and society has a need to label things in order to understand them. Many creatives have an aversion to labels, and even a smaller handful create such a wide variety of work that it becomes increasingly more complicated to pigeon hole them into a titled corner. Two people who come to my mind would Picasso and Miles Davis. These two artists continually turned critics upside down and were creating things that took years before critics were able to name them, once they were, the artists were already 10 steps ahead, forging their way on, doing what they do staying on course for their vision.

I’ve used these two quotes on this site before (they are on the homepage) but I think they are extremely relevant to this discussion, and they speak to the heart of the issue. An Artist, their Work, and how it relates to society.

“I don’t feel they need to be kept in a vault as precious art.”

—Swoon in reference to her work

“I never thought that the music called jazz was ever meant to reach just a small group of people, or become a museum thing locked under glass like all the other dead things that were once considered artistic.”

—Miles Davis

A careful examination of why we use labels and how we apply them to individuals must seriously be taken. In an ever increasing trend of categorization, its an absolute must. People are people and they do what they do. The gift of creativity needs to be acknowledged, valued, cherished and nurtured in those that are growing in it. The Artist has value, his or her voice is unique, and often unheard or devalued, and to our shame after their passing that we then decide to embrace it and put it on a pedastal of achievement.

Got Van Gogh™?

An addendum to this post, I read an interview with Jim Jarmusch right after I wrote this and he states something very apropos:

“I know,” Jarmusch moans during a meeting with me in Manhattan. “It’s all so independent . I’m so sick of that word. I reach for my revolver when I hear the word quirky. Or edgy. Those words are now becoming labels that are slapped on products to sell them. Anyone who makes a film that is the film they want to make, and it is not defined by marketing analysis or a commercial enterprise, is independent. My movies are kind of made by hand. They’re not polished - they’re sort of built in the garage. It’s more like being an artisan in some way.”

—Jim Jarmusch

Jim Jarmusch Interview