Inside Out

As all the people who read this blog know, I'm currently working on an exhibition project which is focused on what is known as "outsider art." Some important issues have reared their heads regarding this heading, both in class and in my independent research. I've decided that there is a key decision I have to make in order to move on with this project: Do I want this exhibition to be focused on a particular aspect of the content of the artwork (i.e. "fantasy worlds"), in which the artists' emotional, psychological and social states are not the primary focus, or do I want to highlight these kinds of presumably influential factors? If I chose the latter, I'll have to take on the term "outsider art" and delve into some pretty intense existential questions, including one that was raised recently in The Economist : "How important is intent in art?"

The Economist article focused on "The Museum of Everything" in London,  established and curated by James Brett. There are a couple of revenant elements to this story. One is that the museum is in the basement of Selfridge's, a British department store and hotel. Interesting, in light of the issue of consumerism that runs rampant in this blog. Secondly, the museum takes on "outsider art," but Brett doesn't use the term, which, as I mentioned earlier, relates to the issue I'm dealing with at the moment.

It's actually kind of a strange coincidence that my mom sent me this article-- it discusses a retrospective of the work of Judith Scott, one of the artists I've been considering in my own exhibition project. Judith Scott was deaf, mute and was born with Down syndrome. The columnist, E.H., asserts that it's important to know these things about Scott to fully appreciate her work. I personally was more interested in learning about the adult art center where Scott worked and her discovery of fiber as a medium than her disabilities. And what was especially remarkable to me is the idea of a person like Scott, cut off from the world because of being deaf and mute, using art as a means of communication.

So, how do you you group/label "outsider artists" in a way thats inclusive rather than exclusive? "Outsider art" groups artists based on the fact that they are marginalized and outcasted, existing on the fringes of society. But is that in relation to other, more recognized artists, or to everyone? Judith Scott wasn't an outsider at the art center where she worked. In fact, she was probably the most popular artist working there. And what happens once works by artists like Henry Darger are purchased and displayed by museums like the Smithsonian American Art Museum? Is he still an outsider?

It's interesting to me that there is not a universal standard in classifying art. I grew surrounded by family members whose interests lie in math and science, so I'm intrigued when I discover something about my field that defies a specific, rigid structure of rules, classification, and order. I suppose ideally, art is grouped thematically. Cubism, for example, classifies art that captures a specific aesthetic. But art can also be grouped geographically, politically, and as is the case with "outsider art," according to the circumstances of its creators.

The idea that artwork as a whole is abstract, incongruent, difficult to categorize, and forever subject to interpretation and reinterpretation is romantic, but it makes organizing an imaginary show and a real paper pretty difficult.

I'm back to the question posed by the Economist. If it's not fair to group outsider artists by their social or mental position, by their reclusiveness, by their lack of formal training, how about their intent? How important is the fact that these artists (who often do not refer to themselves as such) created this stuff for the sake of creating it? Yeah, so Henry Darger's stuff is in the Smithsonian now. I'm pretty sure that's not what he foresaw happening. He never tried to "make it" as an artist. But I'm also not sure if that makes his art more important or interesting. 

Sigh.