Hi, I'm sorry I missed this this week. I've been a little crazy (as usual)!Had never heard the term "Outsider Art". What was I missing? Hmm. Seems the human tendency to label, categorize and explain things has endless variation.
Anyway, Arty, I use the term "argument" not as a pejorative denoting hostility; rather the way we did in debate, as merely your position. Your opinion as you term it. "Self-taught" is anything but confined to art. It has a meaning in the general vernacular as relating to someone who learns a skill largely without formal instruction. Can be applied to athletics, chemistry, art, needlepoint....
Almost NOBODY today can claim to be "naive" (not "naif" as in art terms) about art totally. We do not live in the paleolithic, when art was invented and rare. We live surrounded by examples of art: pictures in many forms, logos, ads, painted objects, etc. We all see art all the time; our environment is loaded with it. Whether one has taken the time to try to understand it may be more to the point. But if done largely on your own, that fits my personal definition of "self-taught". YMMV.
I do not take offense at someone claiming to be an "artist", nor would I take offense (even if I would highly doubt) one claiming to be an abstract artist when painting photo-realism or any of the other pretty obvious contradictions. Neither do I take offense at someone claiming not to be an artist, because they feel they are an amateur or not good enough or create art forms that don't conform. We define ourselves, even as others always define us. Just the way of the world.
Easy to spend endless hours debating such points without having any appreciable effect on creation (either in art terms or the cosmos), IMO.
I'm glad you got some of those definitions out of Raw Vision, as they are a long-time leading publication on all these kinds of genres and fall under the umbrella of general Art Brut.
Well, not almost nobody can claim to be complete naïve. There is art in mental institutions, people who have lived extremely sheltered lives, people who have had almost no exposure to the internet that live in the south, or Appalachia, or places like this (extreme poverty). Sure, they can be exposed to advertisements of some kind, but not a museum, or famous artists. They don't have formal art context. These are the real Outsiders and their work is extraordinary.
Believe it or not, not just people who have learned art on YouTube or what have you, but art college grads have claimed to be Outsider artists. It's because they paint in a primitive style. But they are certainly not Outsiders. Of course, as you have pointed out, they couldn't be naïve.
Anyway, I also don't want to split hairs or anything, and I never took a debate class, so I also didn't understand your definition of "argument," but I do now!
However, I wanted to make sure to clear up that I wasn't really "offended" about people using the self-taught label when I said it was a pet-peeve. I think that means a "continual annoyance" or "irritation." And it's only because of what I had said previously about the world I am working in/have been climbing my way up in. It is irritating to be treated "less than" because I am/was self-taught and do not have an MFA, yet I have more experience than many of my peers that do have that education.
I am telling you, in the contemporary art world, it's already cut-throat, let alone having had this holding me back and having to "prove" myself time and time again. And because "self-taught" later became popularized after I'd worked 20 years with that prejudice against me, that would equal a "pet-peeve" for anyone. Don't you think?
And I agree that in general, the self-taught idea can be YMMV. We can at least come to a general agreement. That's a good acronym!