In 1979 an exhibition was held at the Hayward Gallery in London that was called Outsiders - an art without precedent of tradition. The work shown was produced by people who did not possess those characteristics usually associated with artists - neither were they represented by a gallery, nor was their work part of important collections in famous museums, the artists had never been trained in an academy - and the work had never been the topic of an article in an art magazine.
Of the most diverse backgrounds - tramps, manual labourers, travellers, people with special needs - the artists were individuals having only in common that they did not fit perfectly into society and that they were producing outstanding creative work.
The Hayward enterprise had its precedents. French artist Jean Dubuffet began collecting what he called 'Art Brut', (raw or crude art) in 1948. Other expressions are Art-hors-les-normes (art outside the norms) or 'Outsider Art' and they all designate more or less the same: art that is not culturally defined, but produced by marginalised people, people immune to the polarisation of culture, who are existing outside the cultural and intellectual urban life usually associated with art. Dubuffet believed them to be more in tune with their creative inner visions and better able to express them than any trained artist ot intellectual might ever be.
For him (and some other people) 'Art Brut' was thus art with an immediate impact on the senses of the spectator, not filtered through any kind of traditional, intellectual academic apparatus of knowledge. He believed true creativity to be incompatible with social approval, or even communication. 'Outsider Art' evades specific characteristics - there are no requirements which automatically define an artist as an outsider - thus it is not an art historical category in the traditional sense.
Dubuffet was a central and important figure in putting artistic production by people not usually understood as artists on the map. His 'Art Brut' collection (begun in 1948) was turned into a museum in 1976. About forty percent of the works in Dubuffet's collection stem from an earlier collection, that of the German psychiatrist and art historian Hans Prinzhorn, collected between
1918 - 21, and many of the ideas expressed by Dubuffet have their precedents in Prinzhorn's endeavour. Prinzhorn like Dubuffet, believed that 'true' art was an expression of unconditional, authentic inner genius and not culturally defined. Neither did true art need any kind of 'decoding' or explanation by intellectually inclined people.
Prinzhorn, a doctor in a Heidelberg psychiatric hospital, collated about 5,000 works by artists who were producing their works within psychiatric institutions. This collection, a selection of which has been shown by the Hayward Gallery under the title Beyond Reason in 1997, originated in his fascination with the quality of the art produced in his institution and the urge to preserve it for comparative studies. Further more the interest in the 'primordial' was an important aspect of the early twentieth century, including a great fascination with all artistic expression that appeared to be manifests of this, such as art by children, art by native people of different continents or art by amateurs. Thus a general and lively interest in art produced beyond the confines of the academic tradition was prevalent.
The aim of this collection was, on the one hand, to provide an audience for the work and , on the other, an intention to subvert the art world of his day. It was received with great interest by many including Max Ernst and other members of the Surrealist movement, whereas artists of the Expressionist movement were in his eyes simply intellectually mocking the true creativity of this art.
Throughout this article the expression 'outsider art' and 'outsiders' has deliberately been set in inverted commas, to mark the term as problematic or at least noteworthy. A number of the ideas and beliefs of Prinzhorn and Dubuffet and the ongoing discussion of their convictions pose problems. The notion, for example, that art might be produced without any kind of cultural conditioning seems impossible. Even if art is produced in a different way from prevalent fashion or belief, it is still culturally defined.
Some of the arguments even appear patronising in hindsight &endash; the idea that the person producing artwork is not conscious of it, maybe unable to reflect on what they are doing, of course gives authority to those who position themselves to interpret and value the work.
A lot of what is regarded as characteristic of 'outsider art' is actually true of any artist. The only exception is that the 'outsider' is not socially recognised as an artist. In describing, discussing and presenting the works as 'outsider art' this material is deliberately marked as 'other', as standing outside the norm. The "secret race of creative giants" as the artists are enthusiastically described in the 1979 catalogue is thus stigmatised as being different, not normal.
Titles like 'Outsiders', 'Beyond Reason' suggest a difference from a reasonable insider art. In prevalent dichotomies of Western society the latter is of course seen as something positive, whereas the former bears negative connotations. Following from this the question arises as to how it is possible to make art that is different available to a wider public, without marginalising it.
How does the spectator react to art by people who are presented as different? Knowledge about the biography and background of production of a work of art will always influence judgement about it and there exists the danger that fascination and curiosity mixed with pity might take over and occupy the spectator's mind more than the art they actually encounter.
The impossibility of remaining uninfluenced by information about the biographies of the artists seems to be a crucial point here - how far can one encounter art without being then influenced by the knowledge about its circumstances of production?
It is almost self-explanatory that the issue being dealt with is complex and sometimes controversial and that this essay can only hope to trigger off some thought processes and questionings.
It is important to broaden the term art to comprehend not only what is produced by a small number of people who are educated in fine arts and whose work is shown in galleries and museums, but to accept art as an expression of creativity. In the twentieth century artists and art theory have increasingly incorporated differences into the discourse, and society as a whole has developed in a way in which different cultural, ethnic or gender issues find a wider acceptance. There appears to be a trend throughout the century, where multi-layered expression has become more interesting and challenging than the mere following of tradition.
A shift in the understanding of the discipline art history has also facilitated a growing awareness of these topics, and the necessary attention when the focus is on art by artists, who are in some way different. The so-called art world is diverse, and there are always people or institutions who will oppose forces that are different, for fear of being questioned,criticised etc. But at the same time there will always be those who appreciate the stimulus and questioning of their own role, when confronted with difference.
In an ideal world works of art should be regarded as creative works in their own right. 'Outsiders' would be turned into 'insiders' and thus make the distinction irrelevant. One step towards this is an exhibition like Shedding a Light.
Elisabeth
Herles
Art Historian
January 1998
Outsiders
Exhibition Catalogue, Arts Council of Great Britain, 1979
Beyond Reason, Art and Psychosis, Works from the Prinzhorn
Collection
Exhibition Catalogue, Hayward Gallery, 1996
