A symbol of imagination above all, art brut has nevertheless become the victim of a stereotyped language. Too often, its commentators are satisfied with skilfully circulating the same famous quotes while no one really reflects on the content anymore. abcd is opposed to intellectual comfort. We have to renounce the parrotry and stop thinking of the field of investigation as closed, under the pretext that everything has been already written. On the contrary, we should open up to new questions of our time and make use of the tools offered by psychoanalysis, ethnology, linguistics, poetry, literature and history. We should engage ourselves in reading or rereading the writings of Dubuffet who reflected on the evolution of thought in all its complexity and contradictions, without reducing it to few pieces of bravery or turning our attention only to one arbitrarily chosen phrase. We cannot, for example, avoid the confrontation of two topics, successively discernible in the work of Dubuffet. The first one is the radical opposition of "asphyxiante culture" ("stifling culture") to art brut, while the second relativizes this primary conflict by introducing the term of "neuve invention", which designates all the problematic cases or those artists who have not completely broken off from the system of fine arts : Anselme Boix-Vives, Marguerite Burnat-Provins, Philippe Dereux, François Ozenda, Friedrich Schröder-Sonnestern, Unica Zürn and others. It is to be noted that the second topic has been understood in an overliberal way and many have interpreted it as an invitation to go further in the direction of a collection which could be described as very annexe because of not being that much different from any other cultural production. The presence of several great painters such as Michel Macréau among the creators of Neuve invention who have been accidentally mixed with the history of art brut and who have got nothing to do with it or other incontestably independent figures such as Louis Soutter or Gaston Chaissac show to what extent this categorisation is worth of debating. To do so we would have to abandon some of the perpetually repeated classifications, admit with no particular regret that some creators who, although within the domain of art brut in the beginning, have progressively evolved, sometimes under the friendly but indubitable pressure of the admirers of their work, towards Neuve Invention or other artistic domains governed more directly by the social demand, consumption and exchange. To take only one example, if the name of Michel Nedjar could be placed, in the beginning until the mid 70s, side by side with the names of Joseph Moindre, Fleury-Joseph Crépin, Philipp Schöpke, Johann Hauser, Miguel Hernandez, Guillaume Pujolle, today the presence of this artist in a collection of art brut seems more questionable because of his career, praiseworthy but nevertheless more and more professional. For abcd, the classification can have its meaning only when it does not block reality and if the will exists - in the case of those using the categories - to reevaluate them regularly.