‘Outsider’ Critique Lacks Art Vision

Times art critic Christopher Knight frequently comes up with useful assessments of events on the Los Angeles art scene. Once in a while, however, he pulls out a misbegotten clunker like “Shortsighted Visions,” his review of “Parallel Visions: Modern Artists and Outsider Art” at the Los Angeles County Museum (Calendar, Oct. 16). That review calls for response because it did a serious disfavor both to Times’ readers and to the show it purported to review.

First, to those discouraged by Knight’s wan enthusiasm: Go see the show. We’ve had scattered glimpses before of the inspired, sometimes tortured, sometimes oddly humorous, often wildly cosmic productions of the “outsider” (laymen) artists it features.

They range from Simon Rodia’s famous Watts Towers to the hauntingly compulsive works of psychic-spiritualists like the Rev. Howard Finster or the English eccentric Madge Gill, to the obsessively structured visions of mental patients like Martin Ramirez and Adolf Wolfli. But we’ve never been offered a comprehensive overview, with stunning works from such previously untapped sources as the Prinzhorn Collection from Switzerland.

This new exhibition is the main event, meticulously assembled by co-curators Maurice Tuchman and Carol Eliel. By contrast, with the plethora of stuffily correct material that pervades our galleries, this is serious gut work, heavy with unprocessed sexuality, dark with fears and occasionally brilliant with ecstatic revelation. The images are as compelling as any you’re likely to see this year--a fact that gets glossed over by Knight’s agenda.

What might that agenda be? Here’s a possible clue: Out of a catalogue teeming with ideas and invaluable research, Knight pounces on the suggestion in Tuchman’s essay that “authenticity and emotional sincerity” are qualities increasingly appreciated by “insiders” (professional modern artists) at the end of the 20th Century. But it’s absurd for Knight to conclude that “Parallel Visions” is exclusively--or even primarily --intended as a rebuke to the post-conceptual art which he customarily defends.

The show sets out not to hector us with self-righteous rhetoric, but to expand our knowledge and understanding in a neglected area, and to explore, through artworks, the well-documented impact these “compulsive visionaries” have had on the many modern and contemporary artists who were inspired by them.

Knight rightly points out that “influence” is tricky to demonstrate and leads to fuzzy thinking. But the catalogue essay by Eliel readily concedes this point, examining its limitations in reasoned detail. The show is not about picayune stylistic questions of who took what from where, but what she calls “moral influence.”

Today’s artists are passionately engaged in discussing what it means to make art, and in this light, what attracts them so powerfully to outsiders is in part an affinity of aspiration. The show demonstrates convincingly that there are many looking to do gut work themselves--and, Knight notwithstanding, that’s tough to do when your vision has been processed through Artforum, CalArts, and the commercial gallery system.

To prove his point, Knight quibbles with choices for this exhibit, citing Dali, for example, as a “strategy-oriented” artist. Does he forget that Dali was passionate enough to try to induce in himself the psychotic states he so admired? Oh, and if we’re to dredge up the sure-fire, politically correct women’s issue, as Knight does, let’s note that Knight in his review unconsciously commits the crime he indicts others for--citing only two men among the Chicago Imagists included here, while neglecting the fact that all the others are women.

While I respect Knight’s work, I also have an ear for that note of petulance which creeps in when a critic slips from critical thought into personal agenda. I should be grateful, though. Knight’s review made me go back to see the show a second time, a Sunday afternoon, when I found it packed with visitors. The energy and excitement level were perceptibly high.

Perhaps the curators have touched on a nerve that Knight is simply not tuned to. Perhaps--as the extraordinary success of artist Jim Shaw’s recent show of “Thrift Store Paintings” suggests--people really are hungry for authenticity and emotional sincerity. Even at the cost of some treasured high art prejudices.