Context: I'm writing a final paper for university about Martín Ramírez (1895-1963), a spectacular artist who spent the better part of his adult life in an institution in California after being found on the streets during the Depression. He was diagnosed as a catatonic schizophrenic and mute, although more recent investigations have called this into question.
I'm trying to make sense of him as the mastermind behind his great body of artwork... I think. We have no writing or statements of his AFAIK. We have his artwork, which I guess should speak for itself.
I'm looking at Foucault and his "Abnormal: Genealogy of the Monstrous," I'm looking at a few texts written specifically about Ramírez. But I'm looking for some more ways to frame my research here. Knowingness and not knowing. Him and us. Looking for overlap?
I've printed out a bunch of photos of his artwork and I'm trying to arrange them in order to make more sense of it. I see great stratification, literally and figuratively. I see what many have interpreted as a fantasy world of religious figures and Spanish knights on horses, but I'd argue he's using symbolism from his homeland (Mexico) to frame his own world in the Cali institution.
But I'm approaching a brick wall in terms of what to do next with my research. My advisor has suggested I "look within" the artwork itself for more answers, but I'm not sure that's getting me anywhere...
Questions for everyone (including myself):
What are standard ways of looking at outsider artists, and why should they be subverted?
I think it's fair to say Ramirez's work doesn't have to be simply designated as a part of his pathology, but what is it?
I'm struggling here and any help or thoughts would be endlessly appreciated. Thanks all.
Hey there!
I think you should take this question over to /r/AskLiteraryStudies. Yes, they do books, but a lot of the questions you're asking here transfer directly to literature (author as artist, and all that), and the people over there really know their stuff. Just be sure to frame your question as about the underlying theory and ideas rather than an interpretation of the artwork itself. :)
To the commenter who suggested asking on a literary studies sub: I can’t find your comment on mobile, but thank you!
Very interesting project! u/sunagainstgold's suggestion looks like a good idea - there might also be some equivalent sub for art/art history but I haven't come across it yet.
I wasn't familiar with Ramírez' impressive work, and just from looking at it I'm really reminded of works from colonial Mexico - esp. codices by indigenous artists. No idea if Ramírez has been connected to that in any way since he was born in Mexico so it might be a long shot, but since I work on colonial Mexico I can rec you some works that might be helpful. Probably less topic-wise but they have some good theoretical approaches as well.
"The Untranslatable Image. A Mestizo History of the Arts in New Spain, 1500-1600", Alessandra Russo. An art history approach to the mixing of European and Mesoamerican images, arguing that a complex process of “untranslatability" took place.
I also like José Rabasa's work, who from a litarary studies perspective looks at some of these topics, but also more current ones. In "Tell Me the Story of How I Conquered You" he puts forth some concepts including "Elsewheres" that lie in-between European and indigenous knowledge forms, and discusses lots of other theories on "in-between" states e.g. by Foucault.
While such native codices and mapas were produced mostly in colonial times, many were also kept by native communities into our times, and there definitely are continuities at least between colonial and current forms of indigenous writing. Hope this helps!
It might also be worth looking into Chicanx studies for this, which I'm less familiar with though.