Christian Berst

Christian Berst: 

I keep going back to Jean Dubuffet because he performed a foundational act: he named a field that had previously remained unthought. Today, what still radically distinguishes Art Brut is neither a form, nor a style, nor even a fixed social context. It is produced by individuals who are foreign to the art world, living in a state of mental and/or social otherness. Above all, Art Brut stems from the necessity to give form to a personal mythology, without any concern for exhibition or the pursuit of legitimacy. It is not addressed to anyone; it is not dialogical in the cultural sense. Whereas art, in its dominant understanding, is inscribed within a history, with its codes and expectations, Art Brut remains irreducible: it is not even on the margins, but elsewhere. An elsewhere that is deeply intimate, where creation takes the form of a soliloquy, an inner cosmography.

Christian Berst: 

Appending “Art Brut” to the gallery’s name wasn’t out of vanity, it was intended to be a political statement. At a time when the art world tends to dissolve differences in the name of alleged inclusivity, I found it absolutely essential to call things by their proper names. Art Brut is not a specialism, still less a niche, nor a stylistic variant of contemporary art, or a mere seasoning of strangeness designed to jolt a jaded eye. It is a critical foothold from which to reconsider art as a whole. After all, the epithet “Brut” (Raw in English) serves the same function as the term “contemporary”, which is nevertheless endlessly brandished. It is an invitation for a paradigm shift. Naming, in this instance, is not confining: it is creating the conditions for a shift.

Christian Berst:

Certainly, Art Brut is a mirror of alterity, a two-way one. Rather than showing us a reassuring image of an exotic or marginal “other”, it confronts us with what our culture struggles to digest: subjectivity, which can be disturbing and often dizzying. It reminds us that normality isn’t but a fragile consensus. This mirror isn’t flattering, but rather troubling. That’s precisely the reason why we need it.

Christian Berst:

Art Brut confronts us with otherness because it is produced in areas of social, mental and symbolic relegation that our society prefers to ignore. However, as I mentioned, it confronts us above all with ourselves, because it strips away the fiction of normality. These works show people busy making the world a habitable place, even if they are not themselves accepted in it. They remind us that creation is not some cultural luxury, but a vital function, and that identity is never a given: it is forged, sometimes through pain, sometimes through excess.

A society without otherness is a sick society. “Difference” is essential.

Christian Berst:

What I called “intellectual laziness” in Le Monde in relation to Art Brut shocks me, because it reveals a lack of critical engagement. Refusing to enter into the discussion is a way of protecting ourselves from what Art Brut brings to light: our categories, hierarchies, and theoretical comfort zones. Art Brut forces us to question what we have learned as universal truths, to rethink art history, and to see it as a composite field rather than a linear narrative.

Christian Berst:

I have never shared Dubuffet’s Manichean, even dogmatic, approach of diametrically opposing Art Brut to so-called high art. Art Brut does not need to be ‘preferred’ to be legitimate. As for the market, it is a reality, not a corrupting force. Moreover, exhibiting and selling the work of artists who exist outside the art world can contribute to their rehabilitation. It brings to the forefront individuals who were previously marginalised by society, both economically and symbolically.

In short, visibility and economic value are not dangers in themselves. The real threat lies in the distortion of meaning: when the market imposes labels, dilutes works, or exploits marginality as a selling point. My role is precisely to navigate this fine line, to give these works visibility without distorting them or betraying the artists I represent.

Christian Berst:

Publishing, editing, and disseminating knowledge is not a matter of personal preference; it is a responsibility. Despite its growing institutional recognition, Art Brut still receives too little attention as a subject of rigorous intellectual inquiry. Without critical analysis and an appropriate theoretical framework, it risks becoming either an object of romantic fetishisation or of curatorial trivialisation.I believe that education is not only didactic but also emancipatory. Its purpose is to give viewers the tools to engage with these works without reducing them. This is why our 150 publications and nearly as many contributing authors participate, in their own way, in the collective writing of this missing chapter in art history.

Christian Berst:

I do not believe that Art Brut will disappear as a category, nor that it will dissolve into a vast, undifferentiated continuum. Categories are not prisons; they are tools. They become dangerous only when they are treated as absolute truths. When understood as provisional instruments, they are valuable. It would be disheartening to refuse to acknowledge Art Brut’s specific characteristics in the name of visibility. Its future does not lie in becoming a passing trend, but in its power to continue challenging us. We must continue to build bridges, not walls.