In my humble opinion; madness leads to suffering, suffering stimulates creative and emotional impulses, therefore suffering enhances artistic creation. I stumbled across a quote which, to me, really supports this hypothesis:
"That schizophrenia is for some people a prerequisite to the creation of their works is rendered very probable through the coincidence of the chronological progress of the development of the psychosis, the change in the manner of their perception and activity, and the change of style in their creations."
This statement by Karl Jasper is relatively advanced. The 'nuts' who filled the 'nuthouses' were retrospectively misunderstood; particularly where their art was concerned. In 'Madness: A brief history', a particularly interesting book by R. Porter, I found several interesting theories which lend substance to this idea. Such as:
"Science turned insanity into pathology and the rise of the asylum set the mad poet or artist at growing risk of being put under lock and key, for society's own good or even his own. "
Porter describes a man named Carkesse who was one of the untouchables that suffered just such treatment:
"James Carkesse, an imprisoned clerk in 1679, wrote a collection of verse releasing his repression. He claimed physicians are the ones who are crazy, but Bedlamites are sane.
'Says he who with more wit than the Doctor had - Oppression will make a wise man mad'".
Carkesse protested his sanity. What was taken for lunacy in him was actually poetic inspiration. Artistic endeavor, now considered to be one of the best outlets for a troubled mind, was in the time of James Carkesse taken to be a symptom or source for Carkesse's lunacy. His ultimatum was to stop writing his poetry or remain under lock and key.
Now I know that I have made bold statements and thrown out wild generalizations and accusations, but one which I'm sure at least some people agree with, is to say that those who are declared 'mad' may simply be just a misunderstood minority. Almost all who are deemed insane, do not think that they are, yet just because they are a small demographic, their word counts as less. In just the same way that one may call a dead body 'art', just because they are the only person that thinks so - are they wrong?
A particularly amusing line I found in the same volume, seemed to concur with this:
If civilization is disordered, what right has it to pass judgement on the insane? Regarding his committal to Bedlam, the Restoration playwright Nathaniel Lee reputedly declared: 'They called me mad, and I called them mad, AND DAMN THEM, THEY OUTVOTED ME!'.
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
Monday, 4 January 2010
The Sad < > Happy spectrum.
Jeff Koons, best known for his gigantic coloured steel balloon animals and porno-esque trashy photography has truly set the bar on what they call the 'Neo-Pop' art movement; in my opinion a fabulous infusion of weird and wonderful randomness with a hefty dollop of decadence.
To me this egotistical art raver is right at one end of the 'Happy/Sad Art' spectrum; there's no pain, no grief, no wallowing in despair then producing something from it. It's joyful, bright, superficial, no-holds barred, 'pretty' art. I just LOVE it. So what's at the other end? Well if Koons' work is the Antichrist of 'Work borne of pain', then the Prinzhorn Collection surely is the embodiment. When one speaks of work they have made, that's been influenced by a bad spell in their life, I view this as tame compared to say.. an actual mental disorder? This is not a bad spell, but, in it's most extreme form, a disease, a plague of the mind. Truly the short straw in God's great handout. The Prinzhorn Collection epitomizes this work as it is a collection of over 5000 works from mental patients at the beginning of the 19th Century. What better than to define 'Work borne of pain', than this collection, (originally art-therapy): literally borne of pain?
There is an infinite number of artists, movements, ideas, pieces, works and theories that make up the Prinzhorn - Koons Spectrum; in my humble opinion, ranging from the extent to which human suffering has influenced the work, and how far it has not. Stay tuned to find out more!
There is an infinite number of artists, movements, ideas, pieces, works and theories that make up the Prinzhorn - Koons Spectrum; in my humble opinion, ranging from the extent to which human suffering has influenced the work, and how far it has not. Stay tuned to find out more!
Sunday, 3 January 2010
You just need someone in your corner...
There are two things which I think run in parallel with each other. These are art and madness and how they are viewed by others. Madness, for instance, is only defined by the majority; if one out of ten people, thinks they are sane, yet the other nine believe them to be mad - the majority rules, and they are mad. It is also the credibility factor; if that person is the Prime Minister, they have a much better chance of convincing people of their sanity than if they were a tramp on the street.
The same thing can be said of art. If a person makes a piece of work and calls it art, but nobody else agrees - is it still art? Yet if the person who made it, (no matter how ridiculous the work), was a respected known authority - would it be more accepted? Probably... Certainly... YES.
Therefore if you cannot prove something yourself, you just need someone on your side to back you up. In relation to art therapy for instance, this is something which is originally a diagnostic tool for doctors, but if put in a gallery - can be labelled as 'art'.
The stimulation of creativity lies in the indulgence of every thought. For example, when you are severely depressed, your brain is thinking: me, me ME! With such pandering of the self and disengagement of other needs or whims, how can one help but concentrate more on their own creative impulses?
This theory should be taken with a pinch of salt as it is simply that, a theory, not gospel.
To briefly reiterate what I was saying before; art-therapy has long been considered a useful and salubrious answer to those suffering from mental illnesses or an outside trauma of some kind. However the line between art-therapy and just plain art, is whether or not someone somewhere is backing you up. This might not happen until years after you die, and some inspirational young whippersnapper has come along and said 'Hey, that's not half bad!' It is artists such as Strindberg and Van Gogh who lend substance to the idea of suffering being a catalyst for their creativity. This stimulation of creativity has been reaffirmed by established artists. For instance, Van Gogh was reported to say once:
It is terrible when I suffer a crisis, I lose all concept of what goes on around me, but that tosses me right into work and causes me to take things seriously, the same as a lurking danger compels a miner to rush through his work.
The influence of suffering from mental illness on creativity can be viewed in several different ways. For example, it could be the cause or a cause of artists' great works; a catalyst or merely an enhancement. In a similar way that some consume alcohol before public speaking to improve their confidence.
I draw your attention to a collection of work which celebrates the idea of art-therapy as ART. This is the Prinzhorn Collection. In a nutshell, a man named Hanz Prinzhorn (1886-1933), art historian and doctor; built up a fascinating and unique collection of works from psychiatric hospitals, with his friend Karl Wilmanns. Although this originally started out as an attempt to assist diagnosis by examining the so-called 'psychotic art', it later became considered to be not just a tool, but true, valid art. Therefore, it goes to show that no matter what the work, or where it came from, you only need one person to stand up and say 'IT'S ART' for it to be so.
(I wonder if those poor sods ever knew that their deranged doodlings would one day hold such acclaim?!).
The same thing can be said of art. If a person makes a piece of work and calls it art, but nobody else agrees - is it still art? Yet if the person who made it, (no matter how ridiculous the work), was a respected known authority - would it be more accepted? Probably... Certainly... YES.
Therefore if you cannot prove something yourself, you just need someone on your side to back you up. In relation to art therapy for instance, this is something which is originally a diagnostic tool for doctors, but if put in a gallery - can be labelled as 'art'.
The stimulation of creativity lies in the indulgence of every thought. For example, when you are severely depressed, your brain is thinking: me, me ME! With such pandering of the self and disengagement of other needs or whims, how can one help but concentrate more on their own creative impulses?
This theory should be taken with a pinch of salt as it is simply that, a theory, not gospel.
To briefly reiterate what I was saying before; art-therapy has long been considered a useful and salubrious answer to those suffering from mental illnesses or an outside trauma of some kind. However the line between art-therapy and just plain art, is whether or not someone somewhere is backing you up. This might not happen until years after you die, and some inspirational young whippersnapper has come along and said 'Hey, that's not half bad!' It is artists such as Strindberg and Van Gogh who lend substance to the idea of suffering being a catalyst for their creativity. This stimulation of creativity has been reaffirmed by established artists. For instance, Van Gogh was reported to say once:
It is terrible when I suffer a crisis, I lose all concept of what goes on around me, but that tosses me right into work and causes me to take things seriously, the same as a lurking danger compels a miner to rush through his work.
The influence of suffering from mental illness on creativity can be viewed in several different ways. For example, it could be the cause or a cause of artists' great works; a catalyst or merely an enhancement. In a similar way that some consume alcohol before public speaking to improve their confidence.
I draw your attention to a collection of work which celebrates the idea of art-therapy as ART. This is the Prinzhorn Collection. In a nutshell, a man named Hanz Prinzhorn (1886-1933), art historian and doctor; built up a fascinating and unique collection of works from psychiatric hospitals, with his friend Karl Wilmanns. Although this originally started out as an attempt to assist diagnosis by examining the so-called 'psychotic art', it later became considered to be not just a tool, but true, valid art. Therefore, it goes to show that no matter what the work, or where it came from, you only need one person to stand up and say 'IT'S ART' for it to be so.
(I wonder if those poor sods ever knew that their deranged doodlings would one day hold such acclaim?!).
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.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
