What the?

By "outsider art" are you talking about the work of untrained artists or the work of the mentally ill?

Or both?

I hadn't realized there was a big craze over it.

I'm not really sure what the gist of your question is but if you'll clarify I'll see if it's anything I know enough about to discuss.

I googled and this web site seems interesting:

http://www.outsiderart.info/

Which is the outsider art and which is the famous artist:

There's a gallery in town called Yard Dog. It has outsider art.

I'm guessing some people assume that outsider art is better because:

A. Its anti-intellectual.
B. They percieve it as being different/ more creative because of the lack of factory-type influence art school has.
C. They like the style.


I've seen good outsider art, but a lot of it seems bad. I don't like the assertion that outsider art is automatically great because the artist is some kind of rebel.

I agree Portal. Boomerang I agree sometimes you can not tell the difference. Thanks for the website Noddy.

To borrow the pattern of Duke Ellington's remark on the sound of good music: if it works as art for you, it is art (for you). Its lineage or source doesn't matter.

There does seem to be a boomlet of interest in "Outsider Art" the past 5-10 years. I attribute most of it to item B in Portal Star's good list: people are attracted to what they like to believe is the greater creativity of unschooled art. To me, this notion holds about as much water as the 18th-century French vision of the noble savage! Some people "untouched by civilization" are most definintely noble, but many are not--same as wiith "civilized" people.

There are also collectors who specialize in art by the insane (a kind of outsider art that Boomerang mentions). Unless these collectors are legitimate researchers trying to understand--and alleviate--mental illness, I have large ethical reservations about anyone's purchasing this work. If the artist is seriously ill, how can he/she give informed consent for the sale of the work, who sets the prices, and where does the money end up?

As Boomerang nicely demonstrates with the comparison posting, should a person who is primarily interested in art, rather than the lives of the painters, really care about who's the "outsider" or who's famous. That van Gogh suffered mental illness neither adds nor subtracts any power when I look at his work. The lives of the artists are often interesting, but shouldn't this interest always be secondary to the interest of their work?

Yes Mikios I agree with you. Alot of these people are used, and very little if anything is given to them in return.

Thank you all,

AE

Miklos, I completely agree with what you say about artworks by the mentally ill being sold!

A few years ago I stumbled across the research of the neurologist Dr. Bruce Miller at UCSF who has studied artistic output in patients with fronal lobe dementia or damage. Fascinating stuff.

Personally, I don't think you can teach a person to be an artist and I am always a bit wary of people who describe themselves as such. To me, that label has to come from outside - you're only an artist if others recognize your work as art.

It seems to me that coming up with the label "outsider art" assumes that many people rely on brand name recognition even for art. That's kind of sad. So Thomas Kincade.

Angelique et al, I posted a link on Angelique's Deviant Art thread to another fairly long thread on a2k about outsider art.

Boomerang sounds very interesting, I would like to read Dr Bruce Miller's findings. Where can I find them?

Ossobuco, I don't understand what you mean? Your puting Deviant art with outsider art? Is there a special reason? I will check out the other post.

Thanks,

AE

There is tons of information available, AngeliqueEast. If you google "bruce miller art brain damage" or "bruce miller art alzheimers" you will be amazed at everything you can find!

Here are a few articles to get you started.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/highlights/dementia.shtml

http://www.geocities.com/bororissa/dem.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/11/48hours/main511843.shtml

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web3/Applegate.html

http://www.ich.ucl.ac.uk/pressoffice/pressrelease_00225

Thanks
Thank you very much.

What I learned
What I learned from this thread and the other thread called "Deviant Art".

I learned that many writers, poets, painters, and regular people suffered from one form or another of mental illness. Many of their works were inspirational, made us think, and look at the world with a different perspective, and even helped doctors learn a little more about the human mind. Some made us smile as they took simple everyday subjects like (cats): T.S. Eliot's "Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats", and created beautiful poetry. I'm sure you too can add a few favorites of your own.

I did not see Anne Sexton in the lists (or maybe I missed it), so I want to mention her here, and the biography by Diane Wood Middlebrook.

Here are two sites of famous people who had some form of mental illness, and still made contributions to the arts and in other ways. What label should we give them, I don't think that is really so important.

http://www.geocities.com/coverbridge2k/artsci/famous_people_depression.html

http://www.mhcan.org/Resources/fmcrzy.htm

AE

Please don't leave this thread carrying with you the misconception that artists and other creative people are over-represented among the mentally ill. There is a myth to this effect, which has, alas, been supported by some popular books--and by the popular imagination. It sems to be a subset of the "crazy genius" mythology. If you look at a well-researched book on creativity like Anthony Storrs's, you will discover that highly-creative people who suffer serious mental illness tend to stand out, whereas, an "ordinary" person with the same illness might well not be conspicuous to the same degree.

Highly-creative people do tend to have a slightly above-normal rate of problems with socialization--often because they are so consumed by their work that they don't give time away to other, social pursuits; also, they usually do not like to be interrupted when they are thinking. When it comes to major disorders, however, these people suffer them no more frequently than the "civilian" population. There used to be medical researchers who believed that the highly-creative were somewhat more subject to mania and bi-polar disorder. I don't believe this is still the belief. I wouldn't be surprised, however, to discover that highly-creative people are fairly often hypo-manic--but that's not a serious disorder; rather, it is a condition--usually not requiring any treatment--of many high achievers, in business as well as in the arts.

I am glad you have decided that labels are unworkable! I think they tend to be degrading, too. Thank you for the very interesting links.

Thank you very much Miklos for your participation, and these words which I agree with. I will look for the book by Anthony Storrr, it sounds very interesting.

I also give thanks to all those that participated in the threads.

AE

Miklos,

What is the correct name to the book by Anthony Storrs, The Dynamics of Creation or Creativity? I can't find Creativity if thats the name.

Thanks,

AE

AE,

All of Storrs's books are very good, but the one you want is THE DYNAMICS OF CREATION. My copy is in paperback, and I assume this is still available. The book deals with some complex ideas, but it's highly readable. Hope you enjoy it.

Miklos

Miklos amazon has it, thanks again.

AE

Anyone recognize boomerang's examples?

I think the top one is outsider art and the bottom is a Paul Klee?