Friday 18 December 2009





Here's a question for you - do you rate this higher than superficial 'pretty' work by an adult, because the child is painting with purity and instinct or less because she's only a child?

Credibility is the only currency worth anything in art. Unfortunately, children don't have it and neither do many adults if they're crazy.

It's ironic how if you had no idea who a painting was by and whether they were 5 or 50 years old, or wearing nappies or straight jackets; you would not be able to say whether it was better or worse because of it. Yet once we know we're all incredibly quick to pass judgement.

Wednesday 16 December 2009

Art therapy - a window to your messy mind or a celebrated art form?

How does one really define the notion of art therapy? It's a practice which has been around for over 100 years, but how do we really consider it - as just another tool for medics to try and untangle your mind, or is it true, valid art in itself?

You know that expression 'Work borne of pain'?, well pain is probably the secret ingredient that many artists have been indulging in without really admitting it to themselves.
Obviously the most recognizable form of this is good old art therapy. You know, the one where a bunch of f**ked up people sit around painting pictures of cows in milk jugs or something. It makes me wonder whether those cross-eyed (oh, don't I love to generalize!) people, would have still painted those pictures and whether they would have been better or worse, had they not ended up in a mental asylum? Which really comes first: the chicken or the pain?
It's a battle of science and cyanide; some profess that the more close to the mental brink you are, the more desperate, wild, experimental, creative, you become.

In terms of art therapy, I have found this to be, certainly in medical theory, true; although maybe not in the way you'd think. Please don't misunderstand, I am not saying that it's a simple equation of crazy = art genius. For instance, in the Handbook of Art Therapy, Tracy Councill writes how in child art therapy, the children display certain improvements with the practice of artistic expression. By being in control of the materials, 'the scope, intent, imagery; when the piece is finished; and whether it is to be retained or discarded', gives a confidence boost and a sense of hope and self-esteem. It makes me wonder what is the true value of art and what it needs to be to be considered 'good'. These children who painted the pictures - OK, they may be no Rembrandt, but shouldn't the fact that they've put so much of themselves and their personal private feelings into their work, count for something? Surely, this is when it stops being a creative outlet for a clinical disorder and starts being 'Art'? Unfortunately, there's no art Yoda around to tell us, definitively, what constitutes as art; so it's up to you, Sonny Jim, to decide for yourself.

Tuesday 8 December 2009

MY suffering's greater than yours, and I have the pills and paintings to prove it.

What is 'suffering'? How does one define a concept that can be embedded in so many different forms? Creativity is an undoubtable outlet for 'suffering', as for every type of suffering, there will be a creative outlet of some kind. That word "suffering" covers all manner of sins.

Most would say, 'Oh she/he's having such a hard time right now, she/he's been really suffering'. Does that mean that to suffer is just to endure a rubbish time in our lives, when there's a chocolate strike on or we've just lost our job? Or is it something that has always been with us, and that 'hard time', when it surfaces was just a gremlin waiting to pounce? Let's take the Dr Johnson view for a second. A Dictionary definition would read something like: the endurance of pain, trauma, distress, agony, torment and similarly fun-filled words.

However I believe that an embedded mental distress of a person, such as depression, melancholia, schizophrenia and other psychoses are more empathetic forms of suffering; (after all, everyone can say they've been a bit depressed at some point can't they?). If we take ‘Bridget Jones’ as the embodiment of the pain of 30something, single women everywhere, it’s easy to relate to the mental anguish of this eternal trooper. After all, haven’t we all been let down by a man, guzzled too many drinks and smoked ourselves into oblivion on more than one occasion?The point is, the way she (as so many of us do), picks herself up again, joins a gym, gets a better job, and basically improves her life after Daniel unceremoniously dumps her for the’ American stick insect’, is a prime (if rather inane) example of how her suffering stimulates her to better herself.

It is mostly irrelevant though, whether the root of one's suffering comes from within (such as a suicidal urge); or an afflicted pain, for instance, a close friend's death. The point is you are suffering. It is this negativity, which we draw from to stoke the fires of creativity. Yet I'd say that certain types of suffering run to certain types of creativity. If we glance at mental distress, like chronic depression - this appears to be catnip for budding writers. After all, Sylvia Plath made her name with 'The Bell Jar', and Susanna Kaysen succeeded in being patronized by the angelic Angelina Jolie, and waify Winona Ryder, in the hit film 'Girl, Interrupted'. (A totally awesome book and film by the way). Many writers have admitted to being positively influenced by a negative incident, which has improved their work. For example, for those of you who have never read that cult classic, the incredible yet insanely violent and sexually graphic novel 'American Psycho', (the film of which is tame in comparison), then I guess you're not familiar with the twisted mind of it's author Bret Easton Ellis. This brilliant freak also wrote 'Lunar Park'. At the time just before it's completion, his lover Michael Wade Kaplan, died suddenly at the age of 30. Kaplan's death hit Ellis pretty hard, yet the mid-life crisis which followed, Ellis described as being a 'big catalyst' in finishing 'Lunar Park', adding 'a new layer of wistfulness and melancholy to the writing that had not been there before.'

This is obviously just the tip of the iceberg; writing is just one form of creativity. Think of all the songs that have been written by people on the point of a breakdown, (Doherty would never have been heard of), or the films inspired by true, autobiographical events! Need I even mention the art? Come on, would I really be going out on a limb here to say that well over 50% of art produced these days is being influenced by a negative stimulation?

Monday 30 November 2009

Depression is the new black - Oh it's so arty!

I've always been fascinated by the 'fact' that human suffering is, and always has been, an indisputably strong influence on creativity throughout the ages.

I find that there is a screaming correlation between suffering and creativity. Emotions are such a huge drive behind creative expression generally... but which emotions are the strongest in this respect? Certain negative emotions such as sadness, pain, depression, melancholia etc. are profoundly negative and yet indulgence in these miserable moods seems to bring out the fire in us creatively. A reasonable example of this is art therapy, yet is this simply a diagnostic tool for doctors or is it a valid art form within itself? I wonder, are artists consciously looking at their next piece and wondering what to spike their work with? A shot of depression, a dash of Prussian Blue and voila! The next Van Gogh is born. What a tempting thought. By this hypothesis any bum on the street or Emo teen could whip out the pastels and be snapped up by Saatchi. I guess that's where your credibility factor comes into play. The issue of who you are and what your state of mind is, is a big aspect of how valid your art is - for instance, a mental patient who makes art could create some of the best work imaginable but it would have much less recognition being in a case file than in a gallery. Hmmmm... This leads me to wonder if there is a scale of negative vs. positive art - could work 'borne of pain', hold more value than pure 'happy' art? I feel certain that suffering is a catalyst for creativity, but has it actually been medically proven that distress triggers the creative impulse within you? I'd like to think so. The evolution of the art world over the last couple of centuries has been enormous, mostly, I feel, due to to market demands. The world has become more cynical, more sceptical of happiness that we seem too be looking for the 'bad' in our art. How did we get here? And what about those streetwize artists who may be faking their pain for commercial gain? If the world wants a moody, suicidal painting instead of a dizzy-with-happiness one, surely there must be a few who have spotted the potential gold mine in exploiting this hunger...?