"Outsider art" rubs me the wrong way because defining it seems like an exercise in gatekeeping. What is the wall that divides the two? Social connections, maybe educational background. Acknowledging something as outsider art is fundamentally condescending. It says that while the work has artistic merit, can be recognized as art, it nevertheless must be qualified as coming from outside the anointed clique.

>What is the wall that divides the two? Social connections, maybe educational background.

So? Any definition is based on a wall that divides the thing defined from other things...

>It says that while the work has artistic merit, can be recognized as art, it nevertheless must be qualified as coming from outside the anointed clique.

Well, that's factual (it does come outside the anointed clique). And as many other things, it can be useful to know, when placing the artwork in perspective.

Zen and the art of motorcycling. Can Quality be described or is beauty in the eye of the beholder, maybe more, if your in the pecking order of domestication it applies.

"must be qualified" is subjective, not factual. Nothing bad will happen if artists simply abstain from calling other artists outsiders.

>is subjective, not factual.

That's fine, it still doesn't mean "anything goes". Not all subjective things are "just personal taste".

Yeah, outsider art's dictionary definition would imply Russell has no formal training (like, e.g. Wesley Willis), but that's not really the case. I wish colloquially we more strongly enforced a difference between this and using "outsider" as an easy way to say something isn't "in", either commercially or critically.