Horrible post title aside, the outsider art show at the museum was mostly awesome and begs the question; what makes an artist "outsider" and why do we make the distinction?
I walked into the show as I always approach "outsider" art, with a little hesitation. To me, there seems to be two levels of outsider art that I can distinguish: Art that is art regardless, and simply carries the "outsider" tag (as if "outsider" is some type of race or religion, an extra bonus of information) and art that requires the "outsider" prefix, as if the quality is not good enough to simply be fine art and the viewer needs to be let known, so they don't unfairly judge.
That's how I saw the museum show. The first half was some of the best work I've seen at a main exhibit in a while. It was unique, bold, energetic, and interesting, all using a slightly different technique, all touching on different ideas.
The middle of the show, for me, fell into that second group...a bunch of landscapes, portrait or still lives that, outsider or not, did not impress or catch my interest. The lines and colors were muddled, the compositions were not engaging...the work didn't have any life.
The last room took a jump back into the former level with some large acrylic paintings on canvas, and some ink drawings. Once again, these works were stunning and really stood out in my mind, even compared to the "regular" artist exhibits from the last six years...
And that brings me to my last question...what is outsider art and why do we make the distinction? Some outsider art needs no disclaimer whatsoever. Many artists in the first half of the show, while maybe not going the normal life-long route, create great work that is every bit as valid as any other art in the museum. Some work, however, really needs that "by the way, this is an outsider show" subtext, as if it wouldn't be worthy otherwise...as if its expected to be shot down. I suppose, I feel, that if the art can't stand on it's own legs, without some kind of "don't be too harsh, it's outsider", then it really shouldn't be in the show.
I guess all I'm saying is that the show, for me, came down to two things. The first half combined with the last room was some of the best work, outsider or not, that I've ever seen at the MAM. It was unique, entirely engaging, and stunningly beautiful in a number of ways. The second half stirred up the issue I always have with Outsider art...If you can have work that is so great, so able to stand up to "insider" art, why pair it with work that really falls short? Outsider or not, some of these artists are simply on a different level, and I've never understood why we have the need to throw the "outsider" weight on the shoulder of some great artists, while giving the "outsider" crutch to some artists that...well...don't quite make the same grade...
Great show...but it really stirred up the discussion, at least in my mind, as to the worth and purpose of a term or grouping like "outsider." It can simultaneously hold back great work and lift up lesser work, and I guess I'm stuck at this point, as to which group should be considered in the "outsider" grouping. Is it any work by any person as long as they aren't involved in the mainstream art world? And if so, does the quality really even matter? is it the idea of "outsider" that's important, or is it the work itself? Or is it great work from great artists that simply followed a different path? I'm hoping it's more of the latter...
Either way, it's one of the best shows I've ever seen at the MAM and will definitely be heading back for a second look.
http://mam.org/accidental-genius/
No comments:
Post a Comment