I'm wondering this because whenever art and Autism occur in the same context it's always narrowly associated with two things; Savants and art therapy.
Savants have select splinter skills that make up for their other disabilities and can be quite proficient at their select skills, such as math, reading, and occasionally art. (Yes, your better than all of us at it Wiltshire, you don't have to have google tell me) Those who are savants for art however, are 'exceptionally gifted' in that it just sort of comes to them, there really is less training or learning involved, although that's not to say it comes completely baseless or free of practice. However often even these savants have narrow art styles that might not be very diverse. (A single subject or field they can memorize or draw, such as buildings,trains, birds,ect)
The association I was interested in was 'Art Therapy', which I feel needs to mention because it really is more of 'Therapy' than anything else. Well I appreciate that it's expressive and allows those with disabilities to communicate issues where they wouldn't be able to otherwise, most of the art remains abstract and the standards are incredibly lenient; that is to say nonexistant. As far as 'art training' goes, it seems to be lacking in any sort of rigor. I'm questioning whether any art produced or trained from it would pass in an art portfolio offered to any real art colledge or whether the art has merit outside it's expression or so calles niche status as 'Autism Art'. (For example, assume the recipient has no knowledge of the applicants autism, how does it fare than if that's not factored in? I'm excluding special programs for this kind of thing as well, if there are such things)
But well, who knows. What do you guys think?