Naive art/outsider art/folk art has a place but it frequently involves a volturing promoter, or twelve, as has been pointed out. Sometimes the subject profits well enough but that's the exception to the rule, I think. And, I say subject, rather than artist, because the creator is more of the story than the piece itself.
Butterflywing is brave to point out the differences between the original utility blankets and the current product. Many of us had relatives who made scrap blankets for utilitarian purposes and those aren't art. They would need to be grouped, framed in a sociological perspective and promoted.
Some of my favorite painters were actually limners. I'm descended from limners who will never be famous, never have a patron. Long dead and "undiscovered," they were working folk who barely managed to make a living with their commercial "art." Multiple generations worked together, some as gilders. While fascinating to me, it would require a serious effort to interest anyone else.
Any argument about naive art leads to the canons and definitions and, well, there's fun in that. I already took that class. I just wanted to say that I see Butterflywing's point and Gee's point, too.