With respect to the larger ethical conversation around the promotion and sale of disabled artists’ work, it’s a vast grey area that I’m going to attempt to address with a dedicated post in the near future. I’ll include mention of some more disabled artists that have made their way into various levels of the contemporary art world. As for the issue of exploitation, one could argue that all artists are subject to some kind of exploitation at the hands of the market. The parallel market is driven largely by collectors of “naive” art, who frequent a network of galleries such as those who advertise in publications like Raw Vision.

More to come. Thanks again for the robust debate!

I’m still not clear on what it is, exactly, that you are saying about the Marc Jacobs bags. In your piece you note that the artists deserve the grad project, but in your comments you say you are suspicious of a cult of celebrity around Jacobs and the huge potential for exploitation. I don’t get how any of this is connected — are you saying that CG is exploiting its artists because they are into Jacobs’ cultural status or that the studio projects should not be involved in marketing their artists work?

Also I would still have to disagree with you on the acceptance of work by disabled artists. The fact that, to my knowledge, only one gallery in the Bay Area (Jack Fischer) and only two in NYC (Ricco/Maresca and White Columns) show their art with any regularity is evidence that is it not integrated into the contemporary art world.

I’m not sure what you are saying about the birth of a parallel market – are you telling me it is evidence of the contemporary art world not wanting to exploit talent (which I find impossible to believe) or proof that the artists/studio projects have created their own market because of a lack of attention from the contemporary art world or something else entirely?

Also, I said nothing about a conspiracy re: Marc Jacobs. The “cult of celebrity” (like last century’s “cult of personality”) is a fact of our gossip-rag media and I think it’s culturally ingrained. Happy to engage in a debate on that point in some other forum.

There are plenty of links to both artists’ own sites with copious images and text, which I could not represent in their entirety here. Hope you will be moved to check them out.

@ Timothy, the difference between Murakami/Vuitton and CG/Marc Jacobs is that Murakami is completely in control of his brand and his choices. The Creative Growth staff must necessarily act on behalf of their artists, who are not in a position to manage the business generated around their art. This is the central ethical issue that I feel begs resolving with respect to the “outsider” art market (I use quotes because I think the term is a red herring). I disagree that the contemporary art world treats disabled artists purely as curiosities, but I think a parallel market for art by disabled artists has sprung up in part because these artists are not able to be in control of how their work is presented and received within the marketplace. There is huge potential for explotiation there, and it falls to the (overworked, undersupported) staff of organizations like NIAD and CG to protect their artists.

Lastly, I take issue with your statement that my piece is affirmative because I have a pre-existing relationship with NIAD. My piece is affirmative because I liked the projects, plain and simple.

A blog post can really only begin a conversation, which is what I have tried to do. I guess it worked.

I’m not sure I would be interested in a larger discussion of the market for outsider art, but I would be interested in a conversation about why the contemporary art world seldom seems to recognize art by disabled artists as little more than a curiosity. Or as something separate from all other kinds of accepted contemporary art. Care to start one here?

@ Julian,
Thanks for the back up. I think the piece reads as affirmative because Anuradha has curated for NIAD. And full disclosure for me: Three years I consulted with CG on their publicity effort.

Also, this reads as pretty anecdotal and affirmative – I wish you’d had more to say about (and had posted images of) the designs as such. I find the “action shots” pretty hard to parse.

Not intrigued at all by a “cult of celebrity” around Marc Jacobs. He’s a celebrity, and supports various causes that are more or less right on – which has a payoff for those “concerned consumers.” Where’s the conspiracy?

But I think comparing CG’s bags with a grad student project is bit of apples and oranges. The point of the Jacobs’ project was to help raise money, in a time of massive funding cuts, for CG’s daily activities.