Talk:Outsider Art

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1: through June 24, 2007

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)