The Problem of Museification in Outsider Art Environments

This article comprehensively examines museification challenges for vernacular and outsider art environments—unique spatial settings created by self-taught artists beyond professional art systems, markets, and institutions. These sites synthesize material heritage (architecture, artifacts) and intangible elements (authorial mythologies, cultural codes), forming distinct cultural landscapes requiring specialized preservation approaches. The study aims to identify sociocultural, methodological, and legal barriers hindering the integration of such environments into cultural heritage frameworks while developing effective Russian museification models. Its scientific novelty lies in systematizing these complex phenomena as interdisciplinary subjects and proposing tailored legal preservation mechanisms for Russia’s context. Methodologically, the research employs case studies of successful international precedents (Ferdinand Cheval’s Ideal Palace in France; Howard Finster’s Paradise Garden in the USA), comparative analysis of Russian, Italian, and U.S. legislation, legal modeling techniques, and expert assessment of a Russian case study: artist Yuri Antonov’s apartment-studio in Vyritsa. Key findings reveal critical gaps in Russian heritage law, including the absence of a formal "vernacular heritage" definition and identification criteria, severely obstructing protection efforts. Legal conflicts emerge during residential property museification, particularly regarding status ambiguities (residential vs. non-residential) and owner obligations. Analysis confirms the efficacy of international funding models combining grants, tax incentives, cultural tourism revenues, and state subsidies. The study demonstrates the necessity of balancing public preservation interests with owner rights, evidenced through both restrictive measures (e.g., Italy’s heritage codes) and incentivizing mechanisms (e.g., tax relief under Russian Federal Law No. 73-FZ). Concrete regulatory proposals for Russia include: legislative recognition of "vernacular heritage," simplified property requalification procedures bypassing standard housing restrictions, tax benefits for owners, compulsory acquisition protocols for at-risk sites, and cultural cooperative frameworks. The practical significance targets enhancements to Russia’s heritage legislation (Federal Law No. 73-FZ), regional preservation programs for outsider art, and methodological guidelines for museums and cultural tourism. The Antonov case underscores local communities’ pivotal role in identifying vulnerable heritage and the urgent need for responsive legal safeguards enabling timely protection and museification.