"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.
thank you Sara for such a thoughtful response, which explores the nuance of the question around madness and art. I was just thinking too, that art is one of the only places where mad people's expressions are welcome. There are countless books about creativity and madness, and artistic practice as therapeutic. Art therapy is a popular niche of therapeutic practice. I'm thinking also of the Mental Health Arts Festival here in Scotland, which features visual art, film and performance that explores mental health topics. So I guess madness as art is already an accepted thing - which makes me wonder too about the installation in question and if it was created by someone with lived experience as an expression of their own experience of madness. But you've raised such an important aspect of this - the way in which art is cordoned off in our society and contained within galleries. Much as madness is contained within hospitals. I think you capture well the point about deviance and discomfort. Again: thank you for your thoughts on this. :-)
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.
yes absolutely - it is our own Western culture, rooted in Enlightenment rationality, which has marginalised and pathologised altered states, and indeed folk wisdom of all kinds. Thank you for that point. Re: Scottish MHA it is interesting, I was sectioned and had done nothing to indicate harm to myself or others. I wasn't disruptive or interfering with anyone. I did things which were "out of character" such as going to a pub after work by myself, and later throwing my keys into a bin on the street. When I was evaluated by the MH team I didn't say anything, I kept silent because I felt threatened - with reason, it turns out. Keeping silent and refusing to engage was enough to warrant me being deemed eligible for involuntary hospitalisation. I still have yet to review my case notes, which I had requested, so I could be misremembering the nuances. But I will also look at them in the context of the legislation. Not with a view to disputing - but simply to seek clarity for myself about what happened. Thank you so much for your comment and for reading the blog! :-)
"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.
thank you Sara for such a thoughtful response, which explores the nuance of the question around madness and art. I was just thinking too, that art is one of the only places where mad people's expressions are welcome. There are countless books about creativity and madness, and artistic practice as therapeutic. Art therapy is a popular niche of therapeutic practice. I'm thinking also of the Mental Health Arts Festival here in Scotland, which features visual art, film and performance that explores mental health topics. So I guess madness as art is already an accepted thing - which makes me wonder too about the installation in question and if it was created by someone with lived experience as an expression of their own experience of madness. But you've raised such an important aspect of this - the way in which art is cordoned off in our society and contained within galleries. Much as madness is contained within hospitals. I think you capture well the point about deviance and discomfort. Again: thank you for your thoughts on this. :-)
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.
hi Anni
yes absolutely - it is our own Western culture, rooted in Enlightenment rationality, which has marginalised and pathologised altered states, and indeed folk wisdom of all kinds. Thank you for that point. Re: Scottish MHA it is interesting, I was sectioned and had done nothing to indicate harm to myself or others. I wasn't disruptive or interfering with anyone. I did things which were "out of character" such as going to a pub after work by myself, and later throwing my keys into a bin on the street. When I was evaluated by the MH team I didn't say anything, I kept silent because I felt threatened - with reason, it turns out. Keeping silent and refusing to engage was enough to warrant me being deemed eligible for involuntary hospitalisation. I still have yet to review my case notes, which I had requested, so I could be misremembering the nuances. But I will also look at them in the context of the legislation. Not with a view to disputing - but simply to seek clarity for myself about what happened. Thank you so much for your comment and for reading the blog! :-)