Although a common string of adjectives, that include: retro, vintage, bizarre, alternative, edgy, and handmade, popped up frequently during my investigation, I really appreciated this definition from good ole Webster:

Indie:1 : one that is independent; especially an unaffiliated record or motion-picture production company
2 : something (as a record or film) produced by an indie

Apparantly, the term “indie” was originally associated with the music and film-making industries. (Much to my dismay, “indie,” has nothing at all to do with Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom or Native American Indians). “Indie” is short for “independant.” Therefore, indie-art, is art that is made by the independant or unafilliated artist.

That leads to my next question: If an artist or craftsperson is represented by a gallery or multiple galleries, does that mean that they are no longer considered an indie-artist? Because by definition we are talking about independance, right? Non-affiliation. Self-representation.

Furthermore, the term, “indie-art,” paints similar mind-images as terms like “Bohemiam” or “Gypsy-esque.” Is indie-art a sort of self-removed subculture of art? Okay, now I’m really confused, because, aren’t artists, by nature, already somewhat removed from the mainstream? Are Indie-artists extra independant? Or is this term just extra redundant?