It is over fifty years since Dubuffet first formulated
his theory of Art Brut and thirty since Roger Cardinal
introduced the term Outsider Art. John
Maizels surveys recent developments in re-evaluating
definitions for the Twenty-first Century and looks at
Cardinal’s radical introduction of The Marginal Arts
‘Art races ahead, while criticism shuffles blindly
after, convinced that it too is making great strides.’
Roger Cardinal
Excerpt:
...For years now, academics and
theorists have been grappling with the problem of defining
a still developing and expanding field which is made
up of many contrasting elements. In order to find some
logic in what can often become a haze, we need to look
back half a century, to the first comprehensive analysis
of the meaning and context of works which were by now
in the process of being fully accepted as art.
Jean Dubuffet gave the ‘art
with no name’ an identity and intellectual rationale.
He was able to elevate its status from the ‘art of the
insane’ or ‘mad art’ to an altogether higher level.
Here was the purest form of visual expression yet discovered,
one which was inherently at odds with established high
culture and its concepts of sequential art history.
However, he also realised that insanity was no guarantee
of artistic merit and that true Art brut was
produced by only a minority of mental patients. He saw
that Art brut could come from any quarter – often
where least expected. Art brut was pure creation,
an unconscious flow from within that defied any preconception
of what art should look like or stand for.