madness, art and abuse
some further reflections
In a previous post I made reference to an art installation which sits on the roof of the psychiatric clinic in Amsterdam where I spent some time, several years ago.
My friend offered a comment and I responded, as follows:
Tony: I need to say that the "art project" on the outside of this institution is very disturbing to me. All I can see is a sick joke about suicide. "Flirting with Suicide" would be the title I'd give it! To me this feels like the kind of flaunting of an "acceptable" form of violence. The kind of thing abusers love to do.
Julia: Indeed, that is a salient point and one I haven't addressed, and you're very right to point out that aspect of the piece. I don't have the same reaction to it, and I'm wondering why. When I was in Amsterdam I did indeed come close to suicide. I sat on the edge of a canal and pondered what would happen if I dropped myself in, if I would sink or swim. (Well I don't know how to swim so the chances are that I would have sunk!) That is the point when I was picked up by the authorities and taken to the Mentrum Clinic, so I didn't ever actually jump. Yet I felt safe the entire time, because (and here's where it gets weird) I felt that I was being held by angels. Maybe I really was; after all, I didn't jump. But I have felt a connection to that art piece due to its reference to angels, and I haven't felt threatened by it. But I can see entirely that for many people experiencing despair or crisis, the image could be taunting, and ominous.
I’ve been pondering on this, and have some further observations to make.
The first is to wonder about the purpose of art, altogether.
Like writing, art is created and then released out into the world where it may be received and interpreted in as many various ways as there are human minds to encounter it. The artist’s intentions only go so far; the meaning of the piece lies in how it is beheld.
This installation could indeed make a very negative impression. It is shocking to imagine the figure on its precarious ladder over a busy street, with the possibility of that figure being in distress and willing to plummet, in a bid to meet with angels though death. I hadn’t seen that; instead I had seen the figure reaching up in greeting to the angels it has climbed skyward to reach - meeting the angels through madness.
What if madness were treated as a form of art? That is, as an offering to the world of the individual’s unique perspective. I guess it wouldn’t be the same as the offering of an artistic project or statement – but I’m just playing with this idea… But it’s along the lines of one’s life being a work of art. Why not one’s madness as a work of art? Something offering its own meanings, inviting engagement with its own version of perception?
My second thought is around that of abuse, which I define here as the deliberate use of cruelty or violence. The mainstream psychiatric system does use violence, through iatrogenic harm – that is, harm done in the name of treatment. It also acts cruelly when dismissing mad testimony through gaslighting and other forms of manipulation. For example, a patient may express anger at their treatment and this is then written up as evidence of symptoms of their diagnosis, rather than as a legitimate response to which they are entitled.
Incidentally I recently joined a group discussion about the term ‘entitlement’ where our train of thought connected the word to a legal status. I would go even further and suggest that because entitlement was originally referring to possession of property or land – and the noble status conferred by that ownership - it is thus entangled with capitalism. Does entitlement as a concept exist outside the capitalist state?
More to the point, does entitlement as a concept exist within madness? When sectioned, one is stripped of one’s right to freedom and bodily autonomy. One may lose the right to deal with one’s own affairs, if a power of attorney is given to someone else. In Scottish law one is entitled to advocacy – this was fought for by mad activists and incorporated into the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 - but I don’t know the mental health legislation of other countries. (It’s something I’d like to learn more about.)
One is also stripped of responsibility in some cases of madness, for example in the instance of criminal proceedings in which a defendant pleads not guilty by reason of insanity. This is a complex topic and not something I feel able to delve into here in a single post – I know very little about it. Surely if we changed our understanding and approach to madness as a society, our approach to criminal responsibility might change as well.
But I’ve digressed from the topic of abuse within the psychiatric system. This system itself is a form of abuse, in which structures resort to coercion and containment, most often for behaviour which itself is harmless, albeit non-ordinary. So let me circle back to madness-as-art. What if our mental health system regarded the madfolk as artists of their own imaginings, whose offerings of non-ordinary thoughts and behaviour were to be contemplated for their own sake, without interference? What if there were space for madness to simply exist?
And this leads me to my final idea, which must wait for another post. I am running out of steam…
photo by Giulia May on Unsplash
"What if madness were treated as a form of art? That is, as an offering to the world of the individual’s unique perspective. I guess it wouldn’t be the same as the offering of an artistic project or statement – but I’m just playing with this idea… But it’s along the lines of one’s life being a work of art. Why not one’s madness as a work of art? Something offering its own meanings, inviting engagement with its own version of perception?"
Art sees the world differently from other domains of endeavour. In art, the emphasis is on personal meaning, feeling, effects and intuition. It's not about what's right or wrong, it's about a relationship and a conversation. But art is confined to a gallery, a book, or theatre, and if people want to go see it, they can. Or they can choose to stay away from what's too "weird".
People don't see Madpeople's self-expression as art because it is not contextualized that way or limited to the "right place and time", and they are operating from a mindset of this is the right behaviour, this is the wrong behaviour, and we fix the wrong behaviour, rather from the deeper mindset of "How is this other person affecting me and what can I learn from this moment?" They don't have tolerance for the uncomfortable emotions the expression brings up, and because this is "real life" and not art, they think someone has to take responsibility for this deviance and correct it. If something is not a social institution with the correct interface, they are so deeply uncomfortable they would rather make it disappear / destroy it than face it.
This gets back to the larger social issue of why deviance is so threatening to so many people, and why the norms are so strict in the first place. Most people accept the social status quo. Madpeople are unafraid to step out of line, or have no choice because of what we are processing. Unfortunately, the nail that stands up gets hammered.
Of course, mere deviance is not art. There's a lot more to madness than simply deviance. The contents of the psyche are at play. I think it's a creative process, much like dreaming, where we are trying to make sense of the world and invent a story that works for us. It's a process of fantasy-building. And the real, physical, material world we live in has been so sucked dry of fantasy and expression that when it happens, people don't recognise it for what it is. They assume the brain must be broken to generate such a creative (and maladaptive) response, not even seeing that there might be a time and place where such expression is perfectly ordinary and common. That makes them feel more comfortable with the status quo and the way it supports them in avoiding their own discomfort.
I have read that there do exist (or have in the past) cultures which do respect what we deem as madness, as in schizophrenia and psychosis, and believe these are spiritual states where the person is perhaps dipping in and out of different dimensions. Some famous artists are thought of as having what we might think of as madness, such as Van Gogh.
Another point I wanted to put is that, in Scotland at least, you will not be sectioned or incarcerated under the mental health act unless you have shown strong evidence that you are in danger of harming yourself or others. Your posts are very interesting. Thank you.