[Mediterraneo10]

At what point does appreciating content produced by the mental ill become exploitation of them? Gene Ray was clearly mentally ill, but few had any qualms about enjoying the WTF quality of the Time Cube website.

Some of the classic twentieth-century art by outsider artists like Adolf Wölfli was in large part the consequence of their illness, and yet it is appreciated nevertheless, so couldn’t the same persist today for the mentally ill’s analogous creations on the internet?

[jraines]

Some club at my university organized a talk by him (the time cube guy) and a friend invited me. I ended up walking out because it felt exploitative and the organizer chased me down and argued with me. To this day I’m not sure if it was harmless fun (the man wanted an audience after all, and I hope got some of the money from the tickets) or cruel.

[mulmen]

Surely intent matters? If a person claims to be an artist then we can appreciate their art. If a percon claims to be an investigative journalist but actually doesn't understand the concept public utilities then I'm not sure we should treat that as entertainment.

[geocrasher]

Yes I agree with this.

[geocrasher]

I think the main difference is whether what they are putting out is something beautiful and artistic, or... not. You do make an interesting point that I had not considered however. At what point does it stop becoming the ramblings of a mental patient and start becoming art? I don't know. But I do know that the sampling of what I saw on is web ring wasn't art ;)

Edit: It becomes art when the person creating it declares it as art. Otherwise it's just sad. Thank you @mulmen for brining this point out.