by Kate Davey
Since the term outsider art’s coining by UK art historian Roger Cardinal in 1972, in
response to Jean Dubuffet's earlier Art Brut category, the artists, the art, and even
the term itself have been continuously contested. Cardinal coined the term as a
shorthand for artists who were creating outside of the formal structures and
institutions of the art world. It referenced artists who had not been 'formally trained,'
artists who were disconnected from society more widely and artists who were
removed physically from their communities; in prison or in the monolithic mental
health asylums of the twentieth century. For the purposes of this article, the historical
definition from Cardinal is used as a reference point, but with heavy
acknowledgement that the term and all that it encompasses have had to expand
over the years considering technological and societal advancements. It is also used
with absolute recognition that the term is not perfect and, in many instances, can be
stigmatising and othering.
In many ways, it is important that it has been so widely contested; a category that
describes people, rather than art, and a label that has historically been applied by
those with power to those very much without power. However, this ongoing and
unresolved contestation has meant that the work that is encompassed by the term;
work that is the embodiment of innate human creativity, of inner worlds demanding
expression, work that visually represents a diversity of experience and perspective,
has remained underrepresented and undervalued within the UK cultural mainstream.
This gap – between being seen and being valued and validated – is the illusion of
inclusion.
It is true to say that in more recent years outsider art has received increasing
visibility within the UK mainstream art world, and this is no better illustrated than in
the nomination and subsequent victory of artist Nnena Kalu in the 2026 Turner Prize.
However, it is important to note that visibility does not automatically mean validation.
Outsider art remains ghettoised; it is kept on the periphery. This is evidenced in its
continued exclusion from the art historical canon and its relegation to peripheral
spaces, funding streams and agendas. The 'elitist' mainstream art world has been a
space where outsider art has enjoyed very little real success and many artists who
exist under the umbrella continue to be challenged by rules and norms that are so
ingrained within the art world.
The disparity in treatment between outsider art and mainstream art perseveres
because of four discursively evidenced factors – the first factor being the term itself.
Contrasting – and confused – views about what outsider art means, who counts as
an outsider artist, what it is to be an outsider artist or to exhibit outsider art all have
an impact on its appeal as a category – to curators, to collectors, to critics. Ongoing
disagreement between the people who make the work and the people who share the
work reflects the paternalistic roots of the category and raises questions about who
can decide where and how a label is applied and who it can be applied to. This
failure to agree on a term and a definition has overshadowed discourse in this area
and has meant that galleries and museums have felt unable to tackle the subject of
outsider art in any meaningful or progressive way.
Outsider art’s relegation to peripheral spaces, funding streams and agendas and the
impact this has on its reception is another key factor. Exhibitions of outsider art
taking place in hallways, attics, learning spaces – anywhere but the main curatorial
spaces of a gallery or museum – underlines what kind of value is attributed to it by
institutions. Further than this physical relegation is an identified relegation of the
category to peripheral funding streams and agendas that result in its evaluation
based on health and social outcomes rather than on any aesthetic level.
The third factor is the impact that individuals have – and have had – on the trajectory
of outsider art and its ongoing reception within the cultural mainstream. This includes
the impact that gatekeepers like curators, critics and collectors (often homogenous in
background and experience) have on the visibility of outsider art through important
tools of cultural validation like critical reviews and exhibition selection panels. It also
speaks to how key individuals’ cautiousness and reticence to tackle the subject of
outsider art has influenced its acceptance – or non-acceptance – as a category of art.
The final and most unanimously identified theme is how the existing structures of the
art world present an ongoing challenge for artists. This theme ultimately underpins all
the identified themes in its illustration of a cultural system that is difficult to infiltrate
for those who are at any given time outside of it. Of course, navigating the art world
is challenging for any artist, but more nuanced barriers exist for outsider artists.
These include the tendency to over-academicise language in the art world; the level
of unpaid administration involved in being a practising artist; and the valued skills
and networks only acquired through attending art school. There is also a theme of
financial precarity; precarity for large arts organisations at a time of huge cultural
funding cuts in the UK, meaning opportunities for risk-taking are eroded, and
precarity for the artists themselves at a time when creativity is financially
undervalued more widely within society.
Together, these factors explain how the disparities between outsider art and
mainstream art play out in practice, despite outsider art’s apparent rise in visibility
and, therefore, its presumed growing acceptance. Cardinal once raised the question
of whether outsider art could ever take its place within a mainstream sustained by an
untouchable cultural ideal. The answer, on the evidence above, is no – outsider art
has not yet been able to take its place on an equal footing with mainstream art. It
may now be more visible, more recognised, more familiar as a term, but this rise in
visibility without the associated validation is, in some ways, the more dangerous
outcome. It risks creating the impression that the work is done, when in reality, it has
barely begun.
