Talk:Outsider art

Archive 1: through June 24, 2007

Should this article be protected against anon edits?

The article suffers from frequent vanity listings, commercial links and, recently, uncivil edit summaries (e.g., "You need to sodomize yourself with a cattle prod," from user 4.159.11.169). Take a look at the edit history: most of these problems come from anon users--is it time to prohibit anon edits to this article? I vote yes. BTfromLA 16:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with some of the sentiments expressed above; I find that article somewhat ironic in that the links are almost exclusively art gallery and art journal - no links to sites where there are real artists who are displaying their work independent of these institutions.

This restriction imposed on this article is demonstrative of how "the outsider" is ever more outsided, it intellectualises but does not really give us the essence of this art form.

It is as if the Art Market and its quasi-intellectualism has muscled out the people who really matter.

It may be an idea, therefore, to moderate the entries. 172.207.32.222

It's an encyclopedia dude. btw, re: the first post, the article is now protected. Paul Slocum 20:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Art Brut

Since art brut is a pivitol subject in the development of the modern day notion of "outsider art" it would be extremely beneficial and more clear if art brut had its own page rather than redirecting to outsider art. Even though the content of the outsider art article currently indicates otherwise, the redirecting process implies that the two are synonymous.

I move for an independent art brut page which also links to the outsider art page.

69.76.183.210 19:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC) Jessi

I suggest that you develop the Art Brut coverage here, first. If it then seems as if a seperate article makes sense (either because you've clarified how the two subjects are very distinct or because the length of the article is becoming unwieldy), then we can spin it off. If the other article will basically just recapitulate what is in this article, I don't see much value in the change. Do you think that the current article misrepresents Art Brut somehow? BTfromLA 03:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Propose merge from Art extraordinary. The latter is just a synonym already explained in this article, along with material also already covered at Angus McPhee.

The Art extraordinary article was also multiply tagged for various problems - including lack of notability and probable conflict of interest (it was created by User:Artextraordinarytrust) - that remain unaddressed apart from an anon editor removing the tags. Gordonofcartoon 11:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me that the Art Extraordinary Trust might merit an article--seems to be a real institution that has been the subject of one or two newspaper articles--but the term is not, so far as I know, an accepted synonym for or subcategory of Outsider Art. It looks to me as if this is a name one person is promoting for her gallery in Scotland; evidently that person or someone affiliated with her made these posts. Unless I see evidence that this term is used beyond that gallery, I'd have to say that the Art Extroardinary article should be deleted, and there's no real reason to include any mention of it in the outsider art article. Does anyone else think differently? BTfromLA 21:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: A google search for "art extraordinary" turns up a few refernces to the Art Extraordinary Trust in Scotland. There's no indication that anyone not connected with that organizaion uses the term. BTfromLA 21:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Miroslav Tichý

Restored for the moment after cut "notable" artist who isn't even notable enough to merit his own article.

Having his own article isn't a criterion for inclusion (we've just been discussing the merging of material about Art extraordinary that isn't notable enough for its own article but appears worth a mention in this one). He gets over 38,000 Google hits, which suggests some level of notability. The Czech Wikipedia thinks so, and there are some English sources like this Radio Prague feature. Gordonofcartoon 05:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that Tichý has received considerable notice and some fairly high-profile exhibitions. But this "notable" category is a constant battleground: there are many, many people who can legitimately be listed as outsider artists, far more than can be comfortably accommodated here to provide highlights of the field. To me, it seems that the list should be limited to a small group of the very best established figures: Wolfli, Darger, people on that level. It may be that the solution, as someone suggested here a while back, is to omit the "notable artists" section of the article entirely. (As to the Art extraordinary merger, I'm not sure what needs to be merged... it doesn't qualify as a term that has currency, and I'm not sure that the Art Extraordinary Trust really merits a mention--maybe it does; I'd like to hear about it's notability from some sources that aren't closely associated with the organization. The valuable stuff in that article is mostly general material about Outsider Art that is already in this article.) BTfromLA 05:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On Tichy, my first inclination when this entry appeared was to delete it as NN, but he gets a lot of ink in Europe and has been featured in several shows. The Czech article you have pointed out is worth looking at just for the 'fotografii' links; some links have articles in English. His technique is primitive and his photos are artistic and sexy, if it is still permissible to use that word. Maybe someone will translate the Czech Wikipedia article one day, but until then I think he is one of the very rare red-linked additions that should stay. --CliffC 05:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have posted new article Miroslav Tichý. His work has been getting more coverage than ever and he had a show in NYC in February. His photos remain artistic and sexy an "uncanny fusion of eroticism, paranoia and deliberation" (New York Times, that's what I meant); it would be nice to find a free one to illustrate the article. I substituted a new summary for the one under 'Notable outsider artists'; it was excellent writing but seemed to be a copyright violation from page 'Miroslav Tichy' at Michael Hoppen Gallery, link worth a visit. -CliffC (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing dubious vocabulary entries

I've cut the terms Irrealism and Art extraordinary from the vocabulary section on the grounds that they do not have any widespread currency in the discussion of outsider art. I'm placing this notice, in case anyone can show otherwise. (Also, I'm a bit confused about the vocabulary list--is it a quotation from "Raw Vision"? If so, we should probably make that clearer and clean it up.) BTfromLA 16:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverse redirects

How do you reverse the redirects? The title should be Outsider art, not Outsider Art. See most of the articles in Category:Art genres for standard capitalization. Clubmarx 23:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation link

Hello, I removed the disambiguation link to Art Brut (band), again, for two reasons:

1. there is a disambiguation page now for Art Brut (you didn't even check)
2. even if the disambiguation page wasn't there, a disambiguation link from Outsider Art to Art Brut (band) would be as useful as one from Jesus to Madonna (singer) - both terms are related in an indirect way, but nobody would look it up there.

-- 790 (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The disambiguation link should stay, do NOT remove it. If you look up "art brut" in lowercase it redirects here, so the disambig. page becomes entirely useless. Also, your second example is completely ridiculous. "Madonna" and "Jesus" aren't the same word. Charles 21:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

But "Art brut" and "outsider art" are "the same word", right? -- 790 (talk) 07:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to assign the lowercase "art brut" to the disambiguation page? BTfromLA (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I took my own advice above, and removed the disambig notice from this page. I don't think there should be any mix-up at this point. BTfromLA (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Art Extraordinary

I know that there was a vote to merge the now-defunct "Art Extraordinary" page with this one, and that page was dropped here in toto. Frankly, I think the whole thing should be cut, save for one or two of the external links. Part of the material is redundant with the earlier sections of this article, and the rest is basically promotional material for a single gallery in Scotland. The gallery really exists, but it seems a wild exageration to treat "Art Extraordinary" as a concept worthy of inclusion in this short survey of the field, since I can find no evidence that it is used except by that one small, relatively new gallery. I'm posting this here before making cuts in case anyone wants to raise objections or to show how this really merits mention as a significant term. BTfromLA (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the entire section labeled 'Art extraordinary' should be removed as NN; and also as you say unnecessarily promotional of the "Art Extraordinary Trust", for which Google shows me 19 hits. Finally, "The definition Art Extraordinary was devised in order to reduce the potential alienation felt by those labeled ‘Outsider’. " suggests the term is a WP:NEO.

The bullet for Angus McPhee would fit nicely into existing section 'Notable Outsider artists'. --CliffC (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. As usual, I am reluctant to add to that list of "notables," if I'm not convinced that they are truly among the handful of outstanding fugures in the field. MacPhee is a genuine outsider artist, certainly appropriate for an article on his own, but is he a major figure like Wolfli or Darger or Madge Gill? MacPhee has been featured in a few exhibitions and articles (all promoted by the "Art Extraordinary Trust," as far as I can see), and was apparently the subject of a short film. He isn't mentioned, as far as I know, in the major surveys of Outsider Art. It may also be worth noting that all of this material--including the description of MacPhee--was introduced by a single user called "artextraordinarytrust." I'm going to delete the whole of it, except for a couple of links. If somebody not affiliated with the ARt Extraordinary Trust has a good case that MacPhee is a really important figure in Outsider Art, please make it. BTfromLA (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Objections

I have a big problem with this article. "Typically, those labeled as Outsider Artists have little or no contact with the institutions of the mainstream art world; in many cases, their work is discovered only after their deaths." Examples of outsider artists that had contact with an "institution" - Daniel Johnston. Darger. This is a bogus definition.

"Outsider Art has emerged as a successful art marketing category (an annual Outsider Art Fair has taken place in New York since 1992); thus the term is sometimes misapplied as a catch-all marketing label for art created by people outside the "art world" mainstream, regardless of their circumstances or the content of their work." - Also this... why does this have to be in the bio? Sometimes it is used to market art? That should be a footnote... not in the bio! Come on you guys! (UTC) (The above two unsigned paragraphs appear to have been posted by user:Cablegirl23)

Cablegirl23: I find it hard to understand what your objections actually are, I hope you will clarify them. What is "bogus" about that definition, and what would be a more authentic one? I encourage you to consult and site scholarly works about outsider art to confirm or refute the definition. (By the way, Darger's work was not shown publicly, at least not to any significant degree, until after his death, and there is scant evidence that he even intended his work to be seen by others, so he does fit the "typical" pattern in the sentence you quote.) The introduction of the article is in no sense that I understand a "bio," so I don't know what your reference to that means. It is an article about a category of art. It seems to me that mentioning that the category is often used to promote types of work that are not within the original defination of the category as laid out by figures such as Dubuffet and Roger Cardinal is very well worth mentioning in the intro, since this marketing-based idea is extremely widespread; just do an ebay search for "outsider art" and you'll see what I mean. BTfromLA (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The "misapplication" described in the third paragraph seems to fit reasonably well with the definition in the second; that is, the two paragraphs seem almost contradictory, or at least unclear. First we are told that having "little or no contact with the mainstream art world" is "typical" of the outsider artists; then we are told that merely being "outside the mainstream art world" isn't enough. The "often" and "in many cases" phrases don't suggest critical elements of the definition. If being clinically insane really is requisite, this should be made clear; if it isn't, then exactly where is the boundary between "outsider" and insider, if not at the walls (literal or metaphoric) of the art institutions? (And, by the way, it may also be helpful to rephrase these paragraphs to avoid using the word "institution" to describe institutions both of art and of psychological treatment. That's not the point of confusion for me, though.) Spark240 (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Trim the list of links?

It seems to me that the list of external links has grown long and digressive, losing sight of the aim of being really useful for a reader hoping to learn more about the topic. I'd like to reduce the list to the major institutions connected with outsider art who have info-rich web sites, and limit it to English-language links. Any thoughts or objections? Ditto for "see also, " which currently included things like a link to an article about an episode of The Simpsons that has an outsider-art plotline. BTfromLA (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and cut the "external links list"--please comment here if you think there are any important omissions. A couple of the major institutions had rather information-poor and/or entirely non-English pages, so I dropped them on those grounds. BTfromLA (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

SanfordSmith: In reply to the trimming of the external links, i would like to point out that through our companies creation of the first ever Outsider Art Fair in the United States we have helped the growth of knowledge on this area of art extremely. On our site we have links to all the galleries past and present that have contributed to the advancement of artists in the Outsider Sector. We are not spam and are not posting our link just for more visitors. Our site allows vistors to visit and view Outsider Art from all the galleries we represent at our shows. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by SanfordSmith (talk • contribs) 19:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I've removed the Raw Vision link for now. I don't feel it's appropriate, as it's basically a commercial site where artists can pay to advertise about themselves. This is ripe for abuse and self-promotion. I'd like to get some consensus on this. I've also removed a second reference to Intuit site - but have left the first one in. Setwisohi (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Link for assessment: Raw Vision. Reason for inclusion: it is the magazine on Outsider Art and hence very useful information for anyone interested in the subject. It is not basically a site where artists pay to advertise themselves: it is basically a site of a renowned magazine that also has a lot of additional material on the subject. See the links on the left of the home page. Ty 10:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Ty. Johnbod (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

While in general I agree that we need to be vigilant about keeping commercial links off of this page, I'd make an exception for Raw Vision, for the reasons Ty states. Please restore the link. ("The Art Cafe," a not particularly notable organization, is a more dubious link... I'd support dropping that one.) --BTfromLA (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Good points made and you all incline me to agree. But is it possible that instead of linking straight to the front cover (?) of Raw Vision (and some pretty blatant selling) we link to a good article or review of Art Brut within Raw Vision? Setwisohi (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I had the same thought myself, but I couldn't check it out as the pages weren't loading properly. I was thinking the "about" page or something generally informative of that nature, rather than a specific article, but I'm not overly concerned. Ty 01:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the front page is actually probably the most immediately useful, although it is brazenly commercial. But I also think this would work as an alternative. BTfromLA (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Good choice. Other pages are accessible from the menu. Ty 09:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that page too. Well found BTfromLA. Please feel free to add a link to that page to this article! Setwisohi (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added it. Setwisohi (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

All's well. Ty 22:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we add Nick Blinko to notable artists?

I just figured I'd get people's opinion first before doing it. He is really notable, more for his music (main force behind Rudimentary Peni, but also for his visual art. What is everyone's opinion? Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 00:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Is he included in the standard literature on the subject? Ty 00:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No clue. My background is more in the punk scene than the outsider art one. But he is a notable figure due to his musical activities (and for doing the art for all their albums) and is part of the outsider art community. It could easily be referenced. His musical and visual art are really well known among the punk community. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 01:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So I did a quick search. Raw Vision magazine which is mentioned in this article (though I have no idea of it's true notability) has him in their A-Z Index of subjects with this page on him. Henry Boxer (who says he has "dealt in Outsider and Visionary Art since the 1970's") has Nick Blinko on his list of artists as well. He has an extensive page on the first website that comes up with a google search of "British outsider art." Again, as I know little of the outsider art community, I'm not sure how notable any of these sites are, but Blinko clearly has some stock in the outsider art community. I'd say he's more than worth putting in. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 01:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Raw Vision is a good endorsement for including him. It's a notable publication on the genre. Ty 02:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Felipe Jesus Consalvos

Felipe Jesus Consalvos may be suitable to list as a notable outsider artist. Klyber (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is an endorsement of Consalvos by a former Program Director of the Intuit: http://gapersblock.com/airbags/archives/farris_wahbeh_intuit/. Also, Consalvos' work is in the collections of The American Folk Art Museum and the Philadelphia Museum of Art. See also an exhibition at Galerie St. Etienne: http://www.gseart.com/exhibitions.asp?ExhID=498. Klyber (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Francis E. Dec?

Was Francis E. Dec really an artist? Is it possible to be an artist entirely by accident? I strongly question his inclusion. Herostratus (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

An "artist by accident" is a defining trait of an outsider artist. Most if not all of the well established figures in this area did not see themselves as artists, nor were they producing work that was offered to the public as a form of art. BTfromLA (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, never mind that aspect. Dec was no artist; he was a raving lunatic. Sure, being a raving lunatic doesn't preclude being an artist. But neither does it suffice for being an artist. For one thing, to begin with, Dec is a writer, not an artist. For another thing, his "work" is just a mishmash of paranoid delusion. It's the detritus of a ruined mind. It just isn't art nor was it intended as such. Sure, his ravings are funny, so what. Herostratus (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

True, Dec's work is mostly writing, with just a few drawings. So maybe he's better classed as an outsider author. Being deluded is common among outsider artists, and is often part of the appeal of their work as a record of human imagination unconstrained by social norms--the category was invented to describe art (or things that can be viewed as art by others) made by people institutionalized as "insane," after all. I think there is a visual appeal to Dec's work and that he can fairly be called an outsider artist, but I don't mind dropping him from the list of notables... the list is too long anyway. Dec is not a major figure in the field, like Wolfli, Darger or Ramirez, so unless someone else objects, I won't revert your change if you cut him again. BTfromLA (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Philadelphia Wireman

On the other hand, is there any reason the Philadelphia Wireman is not included? S/he should be, I would think. Herostratus (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Editing List of Outsider Artists

I don't really favor the term Outsider Art, or many of the other terms which define this type of art. It's gotten way too trendy to collect— David Byrne has a "Finster" and check out one of the Talking Heads album covers. I follow the Outsider Art group on Yahoo and occasionally contribute. What I have been doing for the last 32 years, is trying to Preserve Bottle Village (PBV is a 501(c)(3)CA NPO) I am one of the founding Board Members. I saw The Owl House (Helen Martins)listed and added Tressa(Grandma)Prisbrey. They are often compared as two 20th century women artists who created large scale environments. Perhaps, the ONLY TWO WOMEN! My addition has been removed twice, with "sorry, this is Folk Art and have you seen the page on Grandma Prisbrey's Bottle Village" Notably missing are other major Visionary/Outsider Art environments: Pasequan, NitWitRidge, Simon(Sam) Rodia's Watts Towers, The Orange Show, to name a few.

Grandma Prisbrey's Bottle Village was often considered Folk Art, until Outsider Art popped up. It's not Folk Art. Some people refer to it as Art Brut, Bricolage, Visionary Art, and/or Assemblage. I lean toward Visionary Art Environment. Our Congressman calls it "an eyesore."

I'm interested in what others think about this. What is the criteria for being listed? Is there a consensus? I just registered, so I'm a complete newbie— but I have added BV info to many other Wikipedia pages. Anonymously. Having my editing removed twice bugged me enough to register. Take Care Josocal (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, welcome to the Big Show! You make a valid point and I'll have to think about this. I wonder if there isn't a kind of unspoken archetype that outsider artists have to be outcasts, loonies, wild men. Someone with her own little house who goes by the moniker "Grandma" and wears lace collars doesn't seem to fit in with the world of "rough art", "raw art", of Wild Man Fischer or the Philadelphia Wireman etc. Herostratus (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Josocal. First of all, my hat is off for your work to preserve Bottle Village. It is a scandal that the local populace and politicos haven't figured out what a treasure that is. Or the Getty, for that matter, that spends millions to preserve some decrepit European reliefs, but ignores important local works that are in danger of being lost to history. (I last visited it before the '94 earthquakes... I hope there has at least been some progress in restoring the damaged areas.) Off the soapbox and on to your question... the boundaries of "Outsider Art" are murky at best, and complicated by the fact that anybody who wants publicity will grab at it as a marketing label if they think it will get them attention. I think you are correct to place the Bottle Village in the "visionary environments" category, and it might be appropriate to add the Bottle Village in the "Vocabulary" section of this article, where visionary environments are described. Grandma Prisbrey also falls into the folk art category, as the types of work she made--bottle houses, junk assemblages--do fit into an established folk art tradition. Howard Finster, with his evangelical Christian message and conventional art materials, also falls squarely into the "folk art" category if you ask me (and he is not included as an outsider here, though I am aware he has been described as an outsider artist in some contexts). It's not clear-cut; there are a handful of artists who have been extensively discussed in the literature of outsider art and who belong to no other category (Wolfli, Darger, Ramirez, a few others); perhaps we should limit our notables to those. Anyway, my two cents: much as I love Bottle Village, I would not add it to the "outsiders" list, but would be sure it is represented on the "visionary environments" and "folk art" pages. BTfromLA (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Merati bird on nest.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Merati bird on nest.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)