Sunday, June 7, 2009

French artist Jean Dubuffet was particularly struck by Bildnerei der Geisteskranken and began his own collection of such art, which he called art brut or raw art. In 1948 he formed the Compagnie de l'Art Brut along with other artists, including André Breton. The collection he established became known as the Collection de l'Art Brut. It contains thousands of works and is now permanently housed in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Dubuffet characterized art brut as:
Those works created from solitude and from pure and authentic creative impulses - where the worries of competition, acclaim and social promotion do not interfere - are, because of these very facts, more precious than the productions of professionals. After a certain familiarity with these flourishings of an exalted feverishness, lived so fully and so intensely by their authors, we cannot avoid the feeling that in relation to these works, cultural art in its entirety appears to be the game of a futile society, a fallacious parade." - Jean Dubuffet. Place à l'incivisme (Make way for Incivism). Art and Text no.27 (December 1987 - February 1988). p.36
Dubuffet argued that 'culture', that is mainstream culture, managed to assimilate every new development in art, and by doing so took away whatever power it might have had. The result was to asphyxiate genuine expression. Art brut was his solution to this problem - only art brut was immune to the influences of culture, immune to being absorbed and assimilated, because the artists themselves were not willing or able to be assimilated.

5 Comments:

Blogger d.j.z. said...

I COMPLETELY AGREE!!!!!

June 8, 2009 at 3:33 AM  
Blogger Maurice said...

"cultural art in its entirety appears to be the game of a futile society, a fallacious parade."

this sounds like a pretty accurate judgment, but when did this become the case? has it been a slow death? did it have anything to do with airplanes? did the movements of the early 20th century try to revive art? did they succeed? what's REALLY going on outside? do we really NEED airplanes?

June 8, 2009 at 9:44 AM  
Blogger d.j.z. said...

The only reason we need airplanes is because we're convinced we need to get places quicker. If we didn't have airplanes, we wouldn't be ABLE to get places quicker than say, trains, and we would make do with trains. But nowadays, if every airplane was grounded, our society would be fucked.

Technology like this (and computers, cellphones, cable TV, fridges, mp3 players) is really quite weird, somehow, just by nature of it existing, we become convinced we "need" it, purely because it is ubiquitous.

What if there was only one airplane a year from edmonton to vancouver? We'd work around it. We'd probably spend our time in between flights more productively. We'd probably have better reasons for flying.

June 8, 2009 at 11:38 PM  
Blogger Maurice said...

we'd probably have better reasons for hugging, too.

June 9, 2009 at 5:43 AM  
Blogger Sonja said...

Hugging always makes sense you bastard!

June 9, 2009 at 10:55 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home