This week’s reading and class discussions really got me thinking outside the box; in particular, I really thought about Darren Brown’s field of NLP (Neuro-linguistic programming). Therefore, I went to work and looked him up on Wikipedia. I found that NLP is comprised of tricks to misdirecting the audiences to get a response, which Darren wishes them to provide by the use of subliminal cues. I understood that aspect since this was something we had seen and discussed in class on Monday. However, I wanted to investigate these notions in art, books, and media and how it serves our society. I wanted to figure some of the underlying meaning or messages. This also gave me an idea for my next paper.
I further investigated NLP (Neuro-linguistic programming) in order to understand Hughes. I fell upon a PDF file by JP Mictchell the first author of a publication titled Directed remembering:Subliminal cues alter nonconscious memory strategies. The title could explain what he experimented with and how it relates to the class discussion.
I have attached his speculations below:
“We speculated that recognition performance in a standard item-based forgetting paradigm may be moderated by subliminal cues that trigger the automatic activation of different mnemonic strategies. We report the results of two experiments that supported this prediction. In each experiment, the basic item-based forgetting effect was replicated, but via the subliminal presentation of ‘‘remember’’ and ‘‘forget’’ cues. In addition, cue-dependent differences in memory performance were traced to the operation of a covert rehearsal mechanism during encoding. We consider the implications of these findings for the nonconscious operation of memory processes in everyday life.”
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~scanlab/papers/2002_unintentionalMemory_Memory.pdf
I really thought about this concept and how it connected with Hughes. I assume that Hughes was giving us subliminal cues as well throughout the book by using art and the artist, poet and the poetary and so on.
But somehow he has achieved his point about the whole notion of power being tied to everything whether it is used as a “nocebo or placebo.” He ties Disease and creativity as placebo effect to various artists and art forms. He states that the artists are abnormal not only in their personalities but also the way they are seen by society.(177) He discusses famous artist like Frida Kahlo and how her congenital spina bifida made her physically and mentally suffer and she used art as placebo to get a relief from her suffering. In a way, she took power over her physical disability and used it as a means to put her name forth in the society; yet, she left subliminal cues in her art to covey her difficult and tragic life, and her relationship with Diego Rivera, her husband. I have also attached a complete biography of Frida Kahlo to futher explain my point.
http://www.fridakahlofans.com/biocomplete.html
Furthermore, I think huges uses the nacebo effect in chapter 10 Sex and Creativity. His speculation and research findings point out that “men and women use sexuality as a means to power rather than sensual pleasure’ meaning that they use any give art form to portray aggressiveness or hostility towards one another rather than for the purpose that is intended in nature.
This made me wonder that in our society men and women use negativity to control each other in some sense. I think that Hughes in some way is pointing out that males or females both use creativity to figure out each other. We think we know one another but we really don’t and oodles of energy is put forth in taking control negatively rather than positively
For example, males use subliminal messaging in various art forms to show that females somehow are powerful. Hughes points out that Muse is a “matriarchal moon goddess… dominant… by male values of reason and logic.” (144) It made me think that men really do feel that women are dominant in some way and that could be the reason why our society use the women a mere object to degrade them in some sense whether it is through porn or adversting. If we take a closer look at the various poems, paintings, music and movies, we find that it might be true to some degree. In a similar sense, most women too believe that men are all about one thing and we all know what that is then couldn’t it be said that they too play the eroticism card to figure out the male “beast”like Picasso had made it appear in his Minotaur and Dead Mare in Front of a Cave (1936).
http://www.superstock.com/stock-photos-images/1158-1583
All of our energy and attention is devoted to figuring each other out that we really forget our purpose as humans sometimes. We too like our male or female icons distress and feel we need to empower over each other consciously or subconsciously by using the “nacebo or placebo” effects by using subliminal cues. Sometimes we forget that we are not mere objects but beings and we all possess both negative and positive aspects. I found a great blog on women rights and people had to say about sex and power and I think this helped me figure out Hughes in chapter 10.
http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/sex_is_power_-_or_is_it
I really liked this book because it really made me think outside the box. It also made me connect with myself on a deeper level and gave me an idea for my next paper.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Blog 10<
The last blog what a journey it has been. From the ancient cultures utilizing shamans to creativity itself. Chapter ten I think was the most interesting. Especially on how it explained the thought process between two genders. Its amazing how womens libido themselves are much larger than mens so they are able to control their sex drive more than males. I also was interested on how hughes described sexuality and how when it comes to it theres always a dominant and submissive partner.
It was also interesting how someone pointed out earlier in the blogs before mine of "how sexuality can be used to so concretely represent the creative process and even how it is a part of it." It ckind of sparked my interest in Hughes.
It was also interesting how someone pointed out earlier in the blogs before mine of "how sexuality can be used to so concretely represent the creative process and even how it is a part of it." It ckind of sparked my interest in Hughes.
Blog 10
Last night, I was watching an episode of Bones and the case that they were working on reminded me of the Hughes readings that we had to do this week. A little girl was dying of Mesothelioma and was confined to a hospital bed most of the time due to her dilapidated state, so she took up painting (very Matisse like indeed). This was enough of a connection to start a blog conversation about, in that the sickness that claimed her ability to go about her daily life gave her the opportunity to discover a hidden talent that she had (oh, did I mention that the art she created looked a lot like Matisse too? Coincidence, I think not…), but it went even further. The flowers she drew resembled the look and shape of the cancer cells in her bones that were destroying her life. While I understand that this is just a television show, it got me to thinking about the idea that we are subconsciously aware of our beings and dimensions on a level that our normal reality does not understand. I found this to be an interesting connection to what we have been learning and got to understand better that the our minds are more in sync with our bodies than we are consciously aware of.
Other than that when I read these few chapters in Hughes, I could not help but relate them to someone in my life who, for as long as I have known her, has been afflicted with mental illness. My mother is a manic depressive who also suffers from paranoid delusions. And what it talks about in Hughes about the connection between sickness and creativity, on certain levels, makes sense to me. My memories of my mother from childhood are a mixed bag of emotions and events that were as much of an emotional rollercoaster as her condition was to her. In the blink of an eye she could go from telling the most fantastical tales of adventure and pirates and fairies and thieves and sword-fighting with dragons to utter panic and depression. She could come up with the most intricuit details of made-up lands and people and their lives… all these things contributed greatly to my overactive imagination and total disillusionment with reality that has been a part of my life since then… but I digress. I wanted to tell this story because I see how this is plausible. Living constantly in an altered state as she did created a whole other world and understanding of life for her kids, but also ended up in her not being the most reliable or safest of parents to be left in the charge of. In the book it talks about the creative effects that Depression can have on people, and while I have seen it in numerous people, that when they are sad or down they feel the floodgates of creativity open up and some of their best works show through during this period… the point I want to say is that it is not always that glamorous. In my experience, it was always her manic times (and the bouts of paranoia) that moved her to the most creative actions. Her depression was always destructive and unproductive… usually amounting to nothing more than her staying in her room, sleeping for hours on end and eating an abundance of ice cream and watching fletch lives over and over. I digress again.
What I want to say here is that, while this book is interesting, I find it to be a bit biased towards the positive aspects of mental/physical/emotional illness. I read this and almost felt as if I was being left out and in the need of some ailment in order to improve my creativity and intrigue and that is not necessarily how it is. I see where he is coming from, and I understand that he is trying to show the different ways in which creativity presents itself, but it is by no means across the board that these illnesses or conditions can help you attain a creative status. I think that natural underlying ability still has to play a vital role in the process.
Hannah
Other than that when I read these few chapters in Hughes, I could not help but relate them to someone in my life who, for as long as I have known her, has been afflicted with mental illness. My mother is a manic depressive who also suffers from paranoid delusions. And what it talks about in Hughes about the connection between sickness and creativity, on certain levels, makes sense to me. My memories of my mother from childhood are a mixed bag of emotions and events that were as much of an emotional rollercoaster as her condition was to her. In the blink of an eye she could go from telling the most fantastical tales of adventure and pirates and fairies and thieves and sword-fighting with dragons to utter panic and depression. She could come up with the most intricuit details of made-up lands and people and their lives… all these things contributed greatly to my overactive imagination and total disillusionment with reality that has been a part of my life since then… but I digress. I wanted to tell this story because I see how this is plausible. Living constantly in an altered state as she did created a whole other world and understanding of life for her kids, but also ended up in her not being the most reliable or safest of parents to be left in the charge of. In the book it talks about the creative effects that Depression can have on people, and while I have seen it in numerous people, that when they are sad or down they feel the floodgates of creativity open up and some of their best works show through during this period… the point I want to say is that it is not always that glamorous. In my experience, it was always her manic times (and the bouts of paranoia) that moved her to the most creative actions. Her depression was always destructive and unproductive… usually amounting to nothing more than her staying in her room, sleeping for hours on end and eating an abundance of ice cream and watching fletch lives over and over. I digress again.
What I want to say here is that, while this book is interesting, I find it to be a bit biased towards the positive aspects of mental/physical/emotional illness. I read this and almost felt as if I was being left out and in the need of some ailment in order to improve my creativity and intrigue and that is not necessarily how it is. I see where he is coming from, and I understand that he is trying to show the different ways in which creativity presents itself, but it is by no means across the board that these illnesses or conditions can help you attain a creative status. I think that natural underlying ability still has to play a vital role in the process.
Hannah
blog ten
Where is the Surgeon General's warning for searching for creativity? (To answer my own question, obviously nowhere; the package is always different so where would Dr. Gupta put it?)
Essentially (what I'm attempting--and probably failing--to do is comically illustrate that), it is amazing how closely related illness and creativity really are. I was pleased to see that Hughes included the great Frida Kahlo in his assessment of mental and physical handicap and their effects on her profound and mysterious creations. It is noteworthy that Hughes includes mental incarceration or fragmentation (in depression, schizophrenia, epilepsy, and others) as well as physical limitation (paralysis, blindness, deafness, etc.) in his discussion of creativity. I'm sure many of us have heard of blind people who seem to naturally increase their senses of smell or hearing; we're used to the idea of losing something but gaining something else. But to look at it from the standpoint of analyzing or understanding an artist, the effects of a limitation or limitations on creativity are fascinating. Although it is unfortunate that these artists are afflicted by illness of some kind and must suffer, it appears that there is uniform consent that (at one time in their lives) they appreciated their lot and embraced it (as evidence by its manifestation in their created works). The part that is scary (and related to my bad joke at the beginning of my blog) is that Hughes suggests that the spirit of creativity may, itself, be a madness that, when turned inward, manifests itself in the form of illness (be it physical or mental).
Chapter ten was an enjoyable chapter for me, as I saw many interersting insights into how the sexes think, create, approach situations, etc. I think gender roles are always a fascinating topic and the idea that sex is the act that leads to the ultimate form of creation--procreation--is absolutely spot on. It also explains (possibly) why women have been oppressed for many years and why the realms of education and religion were exclusively for men. They were trying to catch up :) It is also very interesting to consider, however, that women we associate with sex or sexuality, were often times puppets of men but simultaneously controlled those men in other ways. Hughes points out this give and take idea of sexuality when he talks about aggressive possession on page 141. Basically, he cites various sources, all of whom suggest that sex is so powerful and provocative because it is a bit dangerous in the sense that someone has to sort of "win" over the other; there is a dominant partner and a submissive partner. I think it's an interesting comparison that Hughes makes when he points out the similarities between sexual relationships and creatives (and their creations). This is especially apparent in his metaphor about childbirth and the birth of a new (man-made, as opposed to man-and-woman-made) creation. Other times throughout this book I had a similar idea pop into my head, so I think Hughes relays this concept extremely well when he points out how sexuality can be used to so concretely represent the creative process and even how it is a part of it.
Essentially (what I'm attempting--and probably failing--to do is comically illustrate that), it is amazing how closely related illness and creativity really are. I was pleased to see that Hughes included the great Frida Kahlo in his assessment of mental and physical handicap and their effects on her profound and mysterious creations. It is noteworthy that Hughes includes mental incarceration or fragmentation (in depression, schizophrenia, epilepsy, and others) as well as physical limitation (paralysis, blindness, deafness, etc.) in his discussion of creativity. I'm sure many of us have heard of blind people who seem to naturally increase their senses of smell or hearing; we're used to the idea of losing something but gaining something else. But to look at it from the standpoint of analyzing or understanding an artist, the effects of a limitation or limitations on creativity are fascinating. Although it is unfortunate that these artists are afflicted by illness of some kind and must suffer, it appears that there is uniform consent that (at one time in their lives) they appreciated their lot and embraced it (as evidence by its manifestation in their created works). The part that is scary (and related to my bad joke at the beginning of my blog) is that Hughes suggests that the spirit of creativity may, itself, be a madness that, when turned inward, manifests itself in the form of illness (be it physical or mental).
Chapter ten was an enjoyable chapter for me, as I saw many interersting insights into how the sexes think, create, approach situations, etc. I think gender roles are always a fascinating topic and the idea that sex is the act that leads to the ultimate form of creation--procreation--is absolutely spot on. It also explains (possibly) why women have been oppressed for many years and why the realms of education and religion were exclusively for men. They were trying to catch up :) It is also very interesting to consider, however, that women we associate with sex or sexuality, were often times puppets of men but simultaneously controlled those men in other ways. Hughes points out this give and take idea of sexuality when he talks about aggressive possession on page 141. Basically, he cites various sources, all of whom suggest that sex is so powerful and provocative because it is a bit dangerous in the sense that someone has to sort of "win" over the other; there is a dominant partner and a submissive partner. I think it's an interesting comparison that Hughes makes when he points out the similarities between sexual relationships and creatives (and their creations). This is especially apparent in his metaphor about childbirth and the birth of a new (man-made, as opposed to man-and-woman-made) creation. Other times throughout this book I had a similar idea pop into my head, so I think Hughes relays this concept extremely well when he points out how sexuality can be used to so concretely represent the creative process and even how it is a part of it.
The picture painted by frida Kahlo with all the nails in her body waa very good description of pain. I almost felt it for her just looking at the picture.
"Sight is by far the most important of our senses". I agree with that because I have all five senses and it does seem that sight is the most important. I do not think a blind person or all blind people agree with this because they say that when you loose one sense you gain more with another sense. I also think it depends on whethter someone was born blind or born with sight and then became blind during their life.
Deafness, hearing is a sense that is something sometimes I wish I did not have, I guess I should not say that being lucky with all five senses but sometimes there are things I do not want to hear. Mostly when I am working being a bartender it is almost our job to listen and even though we do not want to hear we listen anyway.
When the chapter talked about aids and Jarmens work "blue" about the blue screen and the audience just hears music reminded me of the movie "Philidelphia". When Tom Hanks was in his studio and denzel was outside his door listening while tom just listened for about 156 minutes to this very sad Opera music as loud as he could.
Depression seems to be all over the place, every ad on TV, Depression hurts, depression effects you an everyone around you. Depression is caused by so many different things, I think it is very sad if someone does not have an outlet for depression, I do not mean medication, I mean someone to talk to or something to occupy the mind. I have a family member who has chronic fatigue, the doctor put them on so much medication, even lithium, it made them out of their mind, I mean mood swings like you would not believe. Chronic fatigue is not only depression but pain along with it. They even tried getting of the medication and seemed to be alot better.
Alcoholism I see it at work all of the time, very sad, very lonely, I feel sorry for them so like I said before wish sometimes I was deaf but some people need to be heard..."outlet"
"Sight is by far the most important of our senses". I agree with that because I have all five senses and it does seem that sight is the most important. I do not think a blind person or all blind people agree with this because they say that when you loose one sense you gain more with another sense. I also think it depends on whethter someone was born blind or born with sight and then became blind during their life.
Deafness, hearing is a sense that is something sometimes I wish I did not have, I guess I should not say that being lucky with all five senses but sometimes there are things I do not want to hear. Mostly when I am working being a bartender it is almost our job to listen and even though we do not want to hear we listen anyway.
When the chapter talked about aids and Jarmens work "blue" about the blue screen and the audience just hears music reminded me of the movie "Philidelphia". When Tom Hanks was in his studio and denzel was outside his door listening while tom just listened for about 156 minutes to this very sad Opera music as loud as he could.
Depression seems to be all over the place, every ad on TV, Depression hurts, depression effects you an everyone around you. Depression is caused by so many different things, I think it is very sad if someone does not have an outlet for depression, I do not mean medication, I mean someone to talk to or something to occupy the mind. I have a family member who has chronic fatigue, the doctor put them on so much medication, even lithium, it made them out of their mind, I mean mood swings like you would not believe. Chronic fatigue is not only depression but pain along with it. They even tried getting of the medication and seemed to be alot better.
Alcoholism I see it at work all of the time, very sad, very lonely, I feel sorry for them so like I said before wish sometimes I was deaf but some people need to be heard..."outlet"
blog 10
In chapter 9, Hughes briefly mentions that the loss of one sense can heighten others. This has always fascinated me, and then I wondered how this can relate to creativity. So, I went to the place that answers all my questions: Google (um, where else?) What I found, however, almost directly related to our class and was really quite interesting.
The New Yorker published an article called "The Mind's Eye" in July 2003. The article is about people who become blind later in life. Doctors told these patients to simply forget trying picture things in their mind because it was believed that the brain was not capable of doing such a thing when there was no real stimuli. When we are young, the brain is considered flexible and capable of doing such things, but once we develop, it becomes "inflexible." This, however, is not the case. There have been several accounts of blind people practicing holding and creating images in their minds. It is called "visual imagery" and it is like any other skill we have; it must be practiced and mastered to do it well.
The article overall was really fascinating, but the part that interested me even more was that hallucinations can accompany visual imagery. I guess that would make sense since one would be creating images in the mind, but I think it is more than just images. Now, let me say this: the article did not say anything about an altered state, but it seems to me as if this heightened awareness in the mind is actually just that: an altered state.
The article did touch on my original question. When the visual (or auditory, whichever) part of the brain is no longer being used for that particular sense, it starts using that part for the other senses, and this how another sense becomes heightened. Scientists did not believe it possible to use visual part of the brain after becoming blind. Of course, this appears to be wrong. One CAN still create images in the mind even after becoming blind...and even enter an altered state of consciousness while doing it.
The New Yorker published an article called "The Mind's Eye" in July 2003. The article is about people who become blind later in life. Doctors told these patients to simply forget trying picture things in their mind because it was believed that the brain was not capable of doing such a thing when there was no real stimuli. When we are young, the brain is considered flexible and capable of doing such things, but once we develop, it becomes "inflexible." This, however, is not the case. There have been several accounts of blind people practicing holding and creating images in their minds. It is called "visual imagery" and it is like any other skill we have; it must be practiced and mastered to do it well.
The article overall was really fascinating, but the part that interested me even more was that hallucinations can accompany visual imagery. I guess that would make sense since one would be creating images in the mind, but I think it is more than just images. Now, let me say this: the article did not say anything about an altered state, but it seems to me as if this heightened awareness in the mind is actually just that: an altered state.
The article did touch on my original question. When the visual (or auditory, whichever) part of the brain is no longer being used for that particular sense, it starts using that part for the other senses, and this how another sense becomes heightened. Scientists did not believe it possible to use visual part of the brain after becoming blind. Of course, this appears to be wrong. One CAN still create images in the mind even after becoming blind...and even enter an altered state of consciousness while doing it.
blog 10
Firstly, it was extremely pleasant to be reunited with Derren Brown on Monday. When I was in art school a few years ago, a friend of mine introduced me to him and we were mesmerized by his work. The unfortunate thing is that I had forgotten his name, and have tried on numerous occasions to find clips from this lad to show others. The minute I heard his name in class, it all came back to me. But since this blog is not about what we discussed in class, I will merely attach some of my favorite clips of him below.
As we have been reading about the relationship between creativity, hypnosis, and altered states of consciousness, I began wondering what is it that causes a reaction, or more accurately, a relationship between the viewer and the prescribed art. How are we able to feel anything at all? And why do some cherish one artwork over another? Perhaps, artists have been able to capture a form of subliminal advertising in the work itself. Maybe the concept of “needing” something (much like advertising) is crucial in the marketplace today. What constitutes art to begin with? Comedian Ricky Gervais said on his podcast that perhaps the greatest movement in the art world right now is advertising. It may not be the artwork itself, but the ability to “get away” with it may hold a deeper significant. Take for instance the English artist Damien Hirst. His piece titled, “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Seeing” is merely an enormous tank containing a shark floating in formaldehyde. It is residing in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC until 2010. Is this merely art because he was able to pull it off? Or does our subconscious actually crave a sea cadaver doused in chemicals?
Chapters 9 and 10 have been incredible to say the least. Hughes’ fills virtually every page with beautiful visual sound bytes that resonant long after putting the book down. “Eccentricity is the acceptable face of the creative. Most societies tolerate eccentrics, and even approve of them, in theory.” Perhaps the relationship between mental disturbances, the author, and the reader play a role that is not too unrelated to the German term: schadenfruede (pleasure devised from the misfortunes of others). Many psychologists argue that, for example, when we view a person surer an injury from say, falling off a ladder that we are not actually laughing at the pain the victim must suffer, but rather sheepishly out of the comfort that they are all right. I know this parallel is not completely accurate, but perhaps we are able to relate to characters and circumstances within fictional tales, most notably anti-heros and villains, because we are able to subconsciously or consciously develop a form of sympathy for them. I’ve also noticed within these chapters the differences of mental instabilities and artists/characters relationships (very similar to the chapter on drugs). For example, Hughes’ description of Kafka reads: “Franz Kafka reflected in his writings the mental difficulties and dislocations he felt himself, not only making them vividly clear as individual experiences but managing in the process to create a compelling portrait of instructional sickness.” For anyone who has read Kafka, (most notably The Metamorphosis or The Trial) it is obvious that the inner demons and paranoia that surround the characters come from a internal disturbance rather than an outward experience. It is possible that our individual subconscious thoughts may not be unlike the ones we are reading, but they have yet to surface.
The relativity of money (one of my favorites)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vz_YTNLn6w
The brilliance of cold reading
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btP_vy5cQq4
Drunk, without drinking (fantastic)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zryGzTbU49I
As we have been reading about the relationship between creativity, hypnosis, and altered states of consciousness, I began wondering what is it that causes a reaction, or more accurately, a relationship between the viewer and the prescribed art. How are we able to feel anything at all? And why do some cherish one artwork over another? Perhaps, artists have been able to capture a form of subliminal advertising in the work itself. Maybe the concept of “needing” something (much like advertising) is crucial in the marketplace today. What constitutes art to begin with? Comedian Ricky Gervais said on his podcast that perhaps the greatest movement in the art world right now is advertising. It may not be the artwork itself, but the ability to “get away” with it may hold a deeper significant. Take for instance the English artist Damien Hirst. His piece titled, “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Seeing” is merely an enormous tank containing a shark floating in formaldehyde. It is residing in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC until 2010. Is this merely art because he was able to pull it off? Or does our subconscious actually crave a sea cadaver doused in chemicals?
Chapters 9 and 10 have been incredible to say the least. Hughes’ fills virtually every page with beautiful visual sound bytes that resonant long after putting the book down. “Eccentricity is the acceptable face of the creative. Most societies tolerate eccentrics, and even approve of them, in theory.” Perhaps the relationship between mental disturbances, the author, and the reader play a role that is not too unrelated to the German term: schadenfruede (pleasure devised from the misfortunes of others). Many psychologists argue that, for example, when we view a person surer an injury from say, falling off a ladder that we are not actually laughing at the pain the victim must suffer, but rather sheepishly out of the comfort that they are all right. I know this parallel is not completely accurate, but perhaps we are able to relate to characters and circumstances within fictional tales, most notably anti-heros and villains, because we are able to subconsciously or consciously develop a form of sympathy for them. I’ve also noticed within these chapters the differences of mental instabilities and artists/characters relationships (very similar to the chapter on drugs). For example, Hughes’ description of Kafka reads: “Franz Kafka reflected in his writings the mental difficulties and dislocations he felt himself, not only making them vividly clear as individual experiences but managing in the process to create a compelling portrait of instructional sickness.” For anyone who has read Kafka, (most notably The Metamorphosis or The Trial) it is obvious that the inner demons and paranoia that surround the characters come from a internal disturbance rather than an outward experience. It is possible that our individual subconscious thoughts may not be unlike the ones we are reading, but they have yet to surface.
The relativity of money (one of my favorites)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vz_YTNLn6w
The brilliance of cold reading
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btP_vy5cQq4
Drunk, without drinking (fantastic)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zryGzTbU49I
Last Blog
Blog
Chapter 9 and 10 in Hughes
As I read there two chapters, I basically highlighted and made notes where content triggered my mind. First, I highlighted the phrase, “Creativity appears to encompass the concepts both of disease and of cure,” (117). I liked this concept, because the way I imagine it, a person get a disease and can use creativity to fight it. Creativity is catalyzed, but it is also a cure. It is a therapeutic was to fight a disease. The text refers to creatives as “abnormal” in terms of their personality and the way they are seen by society. I came up with a list of creatives that I though would illustrate the idea of standing out in society: Marilyn Manson, David Bowie, Elton John, Lady Gaga, and the late Michael Jackson.
I found the portion on pain to be rather interesting. I never thought that pain could enhance creativity. When the idea was broken down into physical and mental pain it made much more sense. The text even notes that mental pain is even more influential in the creative process.
I noticed that Aldous Huxley’s name made an appearance in the text. Apparently he had failing eyesight, which was mirrored by his interest in inner visions. We are to read some work by Huxley in class and he is also a well known novelist.
Next I would like to share my experience of visiting the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam. I traveled there in the summer of 2006 for a family vacation; the Van Gogh museum was a priority on our list. There were several levels to the exhibit. Each floor was packed full of colorful paintings, created with genius technique. The man certainly deserves a museum dedicated to his work. At the time and still I don’t know too much about Van Gogh, but the man had a mastermind.
Last week I presented during the discussion about diseases that enhance creativity. The content of this chapter further explains the surfaced I scratched. It covers many different diseases and disorders, such as manic depression, depression, and schizophrenia. I used to work with an individual, named Todd, who was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Apparently, when Todd was 18 he feel asleep with over 15 hits of LSD in his hand, which was absorbed through his skin and permanently changed his mind. Now he is a 45-year-old dishwasher at a restaurant in Exton, PA. Poor Todd would never, ever go into the walk-in refrigerator. The voice inside his head, which he referred to as “Wheels”, told him that there was a man waiting to kill him in the walk-in; therefore Todd never took his chances. Wheels also insisted that Todd not try the restaurant’s soup and eat the same sandwich everyday. It’s incredible the control the voice had over Todd. Wheels was in charge. Todd, however, was beyond creativity, I believe. He was so wrapped up in his fears that daily living was a challenge.
Chapter 9 and 10 in Hughes
As I read there two chapters, I basically highlighted and made notes where content triggered my mind. First, I highlighted the phrase, “Creativity appears to encompass the concepts both of disease and of cure,” (117). I liked this concept, because the way I imagine it, a person get a disease and can use creativity to fight it. Creativity is catalyzed, but it is also a cure. It is a therapeutic was to fight a disease. The text refers to creatives as “abnormal” in terms of their personality and the way they are seen by society. I came up with a list of creatives that I though would illustrate the idea of standing out in society: Marilyn Manson, David Bowie, Elton John, Lady Gaga, and the late Michael Jackson.
I found the portion on pain to be rather interesting. I never thought that pain could enhance creativity. When the idea was broken down into physical and mental pain it made much more sense. The text even notes that mental pain is even more influential in the creative process.
I noticed that Aldous Huxley’s name made an appearance in the text. Apparently he had failing eyesight, which was mirrored by his interest in inner visions. We are to read some work by Huxley in class and he is also a well known novelist.
Next I would like to share my experience of visiting the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam. I traveled there in the summer of 2006 for a family vacation; the Van Gogh museum was a priority on our list. There were several levels to the exhibit. Each floor was packed full of colorful paintings, created with genius technique. The man certainly deserves a museum dedicated to his work. At the time and still I don’t know too much about Van Gogh, but the man had a mastermind.
Last week I presented during the discussion about diseases that enhance creativity. The content of this chapter further explains the surfaced I scratched. It covers many different diseases and disorders, such as manic depression, depression, and schizophrenia. I used to work with an individual, named Todd, who was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Apparently, when Todd was 18 he feel asleep with over 15 hits of LSD in his hand, which was absorbed through his skin and permanently changed his mind. Now he is a 45-year-old dishwasher at a restaurant in Exton, PA. Poor Todd would never, ever go into the walk-in refrigerator. The voice inside his head, which he referred to as “Wheels”, told him that there was a man waiting to kill him in the walk-in; therefore Todd never took his chances. Wheels also insisted that Todd not try the restaurant’s soup and eat the same sandwich everyday. It’s incredible the control the voice had over Todd. Wheels was in charge. Todd, however, was beyond creativity, I believe. He was so wrapped up in his fears that daily living was a challenge.
blog 10
Yes... i totally believe that disorders can make you more creative in some areas. Whenever one part of the brain has more chemicals lets say, the other part of the brain has more chemicals in it that can lead you to be more creative. But who are we to say its a disorder? Maybe to these people with these disorders, we are the different ones. Their chemical makeup makes them perceive reality different than most of us "normal" people do. But then you think about this... in the end are any of us normal? If my point is valid, then so is this. Because nobody is absolutley the same... therefore we are all different and unique with each other. So do we all have disorders then? Nah... its just a matter of accepting the fact you have to understand people are different and have different views which makes the world beautiful.
These chapters made me wonder if there really is a reality. Because people with these disorders can come up with things that people without them can't but, people with out disorders can come up with things that people with disorders can't. I guess what it comes down to is the safety of people. When a disorder becomes out of control to the point where it can cause physical harm to a person then it is acceptable to say its unethical.
The book did bring up one thing about the quote stating how artists do their art as a form of escapism. I think that probably everyone seeks an altered state of conciousness when stressed. I know when I want to get away, I put all my focus out on the baseball field, or bang the hell out of my drums. We talked about playing sports and music as being an altered state. So I'm not too sure that Hughes quote fully is true.
I took a psychology class last year and enjoyed it. So reading about all these disorders interested me greatly.
These chapters made me wonder if there really is a reality. Because people with these disorders can come up with things that people without them can't but, people with out disorders can come up with things that people with disorders can't. I guess what it comes down to is the safety of people. When a disorder becomes out of control to the point where it can cause physical harm to a person then it is acceptable to say its unethical.
The book did bring up one thing about the quote stating how artists do their art as a form of escapism. I think that probably everyone seeks an altered state of conciousness when stressed. I know when I want to get away, I put all my focus out on the baseball field, or bang the hell out of my drums. We talked about playing sports and music as being an altered state. So I'm not too sure that Hughes quote fully is true.
I took a psychology class last year and enjoyed it. So reading about all these disorders interested me greatly.
Blog 10
So this is it.. the final blog. I found these last two chapters to be really interesting, especially chapter 9, even if it was a lot of information all rolled up into one. I never really thought that someone with a certain type of disorder could have more creative thoughts than a person who has nothing wrong with them. But people are different and some who have disorders don't really consider themselves to be creative or anything of that matter. It was interesting to read about what famously known artists, musicians, etc. had disorders because back in the day, it wasn't acceptable to talk about what was wrong with a person, people kept that kind of stuff to themselves. It seems that nowadays, people are more open to the idea of talking about ones problems and what not. However, people still don't talk about certain disorders they have because they are embarrased, which they shouldn't be because most of the time, it's nothing that they can control entirely.
The part in chapter 9 that talks about epilepsy and migraines really caught my attention. I tend to pass out a lot and have had a seizure recently, however, I am not epileptic. While reading information online about epilepsy, it was interesting to read different parts where people felt more creative and after their episodes, they were more alert to things, took extensive notes and became more interesting in certain types of philosophy. Some people talked about seeing images during their seizure episodes. For me.. when I had my first and only seizure, it was definitely different from me just normally passing out.. so I knew something else was going on. I didn't go into convulsions, which is to be considered a Grandma seizure. I was told that my eyes were open.. but I couldn't see anyone but weird images, like a dream I guess you could say.. but it was some crazy stuff, so I guess that sparked my creativity? It's really hard to explain what one feels when they pass out or have a seizure.. it's pretty intense. But I guess what I'm getting at is that I didn't really feel any more creative than what I already was before I had my seizure. Like I said.. everyone is different and I guess it affects people in certain ways. The migraine section caught my attention because my mom and one of my older sisters get migraines quite frequently. Just like Tim had written, neither of them mentioned anything about creativity. My mom and sister said that they don't focus on anything but getting away from lights. Sometimes my mom would talk about things as if she was in a dreamlike state and I thought to myself.. "what the heck is she talking about," and then realized that she was hallucinating. I guess I don't really understand how a migraine can spark creativity because migraines are highly painful and I think it would be hard to concentrate on something 'creative' that came into your mind at the time of a migraine.
Over all.. I enjoyed blogging and being able to read other people's take on the ideas that were mentioned in all of our readings.
The part in chapter 9 that talks about epilepsy and migraines really caught my attention. I tend to pass out a lot and have had a seizure recently, however, I am not epileptic. While reading information online about epilepsy, it was interesting to read different parts where people felt more creative and after their episodes, they were more alert to things, took extensive notes and became more interesting in certain types of philosophy. Some people talked about seeing images during their seizure episodes. For me.. when I had my first and only seizure, it was definitely different from me just normally passing out.. so I knew something else was going on. I didn't go into convulsions, which is to be considered a Grandma seizure. I was told that my eyes were open.. but I couldn't see anyone but weird images, like a dream I guess you could say.. but it was some crazy stuff, so I guess that sparked my creativity? It's really hard to explain what one feels when they pass out or have a seizure.. it's pretty intense. But I guess what I'm getting at is that I didn't really feel any more creative than what I already was before I had my seizure. Like I said.. everyone is different and I guess it affects people in certain ways. The migraine section caught my attention because my mom and one of my older sisters get migraines quite frequently. Just like Tim had written, neither of them mentioned anything about creativity. My mom and sister said that they don't focus on anything but getting away from lights. Sometimes my mom would talk about things as if she was in a dreamlike state and I thought to myself.. "what the heck is she talking about," and then realized that she was hallucinating. I guess I don't really understand how a migraine can spark creativity because migraines are highly painful and I think it would be hard to concentrate on something 'creative' that came into your mind at the time of a migraine.
Over all.. I enjoyed blogging and being able to read other people's take on the ideas that were mentioned in all of our readings.
The last reading kind of made me wonder what if I had some of these disorders, how would I feel, what would I be doing with my life? I did some research on Schizophrenia that I will get into during our discussion. So I will save that for later. A lot of the disorders have multiple symptoms which make them hard to diagnose. So you could be treated for something that you may not have. It made me wonder if and why some of the best writers and painters had some of these problems? Maybe this is why they were great. I wonder due to the chemical imbalances they are able to use more of their brain and thus unlock a part of the brain that is more creative than the norm. I think that it is a shame that a person may need to suffer from problems to be great. I also wonder if the great writers and painters had been treated for their disorders how different their works would have been. Maybe they wouldn’t even seek treatment for disorders in fear it might hurt their creativity. After the reading I wonder if I had any of the disorders described in the reading how different my thought process would be or will I be more creative. I wonder.
Blog 10
These two chapters in the Hughes book move away from all of our recent readings about drugs and into altered states hidden within ourselves--disease, sex, pain, etc. To be honest, I find these topics much more interesting, and much more downplayed in society (as far as inducing altered states, that is).
"Sometimes I wonder how all those who do not write, compose, or paint can manage to escape the madness, the melancholia, the panic fear, which is inherent in the human situation."--Graham Greene
Chapter 9 talks about depression being a result of repressed agression. Depression causes a feeling of emptyness inside you. You feel as though there is nothing in this world and the only thing inside you is your frozen heart. You lay in bed all day, trying to force yourself to get out and live your life--but too often, you are only going through the motions. Unless you are skilled at hiding it, people will perceive you as feeling sad or down, but you yourself cannot feel these emotions.
Have you ever been so depressed that you feel nothing? Have you ever been so out of your normal self that you begin to see things differently without any sort of chemicals in your body? Perhaps you see things in slow motion. Or maybe you see spots. Or maybe your mind is aware of your body, but your body has lost connection with your brain. Have you ever stopped thinking, just for a moment, and done something terrible? Maybe you were sitting on a sofa and your brain shut down for a few seconds. You remember everything afterwards, but in slow motion. Your brain turns back on, a few seconds later, to your body standing up, and a now empty glass of red wine on the floor. And not your glass of red wine, either.
A painter needs to paint, a writer needs to write, etc. This creative expression is almost an escape from the real world, and is an altered state itself. Not one that is induced by any sort of chemical, but one that is induced by a disease itself. I have often read about, or seen in people, a mental illness being stuck inside them. But, even if it is temporary, the touch of a paintbrush to a canvas, or a pen to a sheet of paper, seems to transfer that suffering out of their body. And you know what, there is nothing else like it. No chemical induced, hynosis induced, anything induced creativity can compare to that of a depression (or other such disease) induced creativity. I suppose altered states, at least those portrayed in these chapters, have a sort of domino affect amongst themselves. There are many things that cause the altered states like depression, schizophrenia, etc. And these diseases, in turn, are just a few of the things that induce the altered state called creativity.
I sit alone in the bathroom, crying softly
tears streaming down my face,
a phone held loosely in my hand.
It's a bright, Sunday morning,
only 10am.
Did I violate trust?
A trust that, so far, has meant the world to me.
I think back over the past week:
a week of projects and papers;
a week of arguements and neglect;
but also a week of love,
unknown to me.
But now its a bright Sunday morning
and I'm trapped in my bathroom
reading the words of kindness, passion
and love
on the phone of a stranger
I thought I knew.
"Sometimes I wonder how all those who do not write, compose, or paint can manage to escape the madness, the melancholia, the panic fear, which is inherent in the human situation."--Graham Greene
Chapter 9 talks about depression being a result of repressed agression. Depression causes a feeling of emptyness inside you. You feel as though there is nothing in this world and the only thing inside you is your frozen heart. You lay in bed all day, trying to force yourself to get out and live your life--but too often, you are only going through the motions. Unless you are skilled at hiding it, people will perceive you as feeling sad or down, but you yourself cannot feel these emotions.
Have you ever been so depressed that you feel nothing? Have you ever been so out of your normal self that you begin to see things differently without any sort of chemicals in your body? Perhaps you see things in slow motion. Or maybe you see spots. Or maybe your mind is aware of your body, but your body has lost connection with your brain. Have you ever stopped thinking, just for a moment, and done something terrible? Maybe you were sitting on a sofa and your brain shut down for a few seconds. You remember everything afterwards, but in slow motion. Your brain turns back on, a few seconds later, to your body standing up, and a now empty glass of red wine on the floor. And not your glass of red wine, either.
A painter needs to paint, a writer needs to write, etc. This creative expression is almost an escape from the real world, and is an altered state itself. Not one that is induced by any sort of chemical, but one that is induced by a disease itself. I have often read about, or seen in people, a mental illness being stuck inside them. But, even if it is temporary, the touch of a paintbrush to a canvas, or a pen to a sheet of paper, seems to transfer that suffering out of their body. And you know what, there is nothing else like it. No chemical induced, hynosis induced, anything induced creativity can compare to that of a depression (or other such disease) induced creativity. I suppose altered states, at least those portrayed in these chapters, have a sort of domino affect amongst themselves. There are many things that cause the altered states like depression, schizophrenia, etc. And these diseases, in turn, are just a few of the things that induce the altered state called creativity.
I sit alone in the bathroom, crying softly
tears streaming down my face,
a phone held loosely in my hand.
It's a bright, Sunday morning,
only 10am.
Did I violate trust?
A trust that, so far, has meant the world to me.
I think back over the past week:
a week of projects and papers;
a week of arguements and neglect;
but also a week of love,
unknown to me.
But now its a bright Sunday morning
and I'm trapped in my bathroom
reading the words of kindness, passion
and love
on the phone of a stranger
I thought I knew.
blog 10
There is so much information in these readings it is hard to focus on anything.
I loved what Socrates said..." madness came from God because it is connected with the art of prophecy."
The little part about Evelyn Greenie was interesting to me too. I have an ear infection and this week I have had to put ear drops in my ear & then lay sideways to keep them in. During this time, I cannont hear. But I can....I can hear or feel the vibrations of sound & I can also sense what is goin on around me. I can clealy see that my other senses have kicked in overtime to compensate for my lack of hearing.
I found the information on creativity & disease to be most interesting. Life tends to have a mind of its own...Mine seems to relate to much of this chapter. Its actually really strange to read a book like this and relate diease and mental illness to creativity in such a way that they become scientific components of one another. So much of this chapter was like this for me, and even the next chapter about gender. Natural, biological factors within our make up that may have been seen as flaws or "hang-ups" to some are actually almost viewed as an asset in this book. I mean the down sides are defintely mentioned but its interesting to read nonetheless. the section on alcoholism was especially fascinating to me. The fact that it was under chapter of Disease says a lot. Many dont consider alcoholism a disease. "...physiological, psychological, social and genetic factors." ...interesting
It is incredible to me also, the number and caliber of people who have been effected by disease and how it has maybe impacted their creativity. My favorite writers & artists, Matisse, Capote, Steinbeck, Pollock, Kafka, Rothko....to name a few. I have always been greatly inspired by their work. There are many others too who were not mentioned in this book.
Something else thats interesting that's not mentioned in the book is about manic depression and epilepsy/mirgraines. The book mentions that Lithium was used to treat Manic depression, it still is, but now the same meds used to treat epilesy and migraines are used to treat manic depression or bi-polar too . anit-seizures or anit-convulsants work on the brain in the same way that Lithium works as a mood stabilizer. Interesting...they kinda "correct" the same areas of the brain.
Although I am happy that this is the last blog, (mostly b/c Im off to a warm sunny beach)
...a part of me will miss it....
farewell blogging buddies.... :-)) peace
I loved what Socrates said..." madness came from God because it is connected with the art of prophecy."
The little part about Evelyn Greenie was interesting to me too. I have an ear infection and this week I have had to put ear drops in my ear & then lay sideways to keep them in. During this time, I cannont hear. But I can....I can hear or feel the vibrations of sound & I can also sense what is goin on around me. I can clealy see that my other senses have kicked in overtime to compensate for my lack of hearing.
I found the information on creativity & disease to be most interesting. Life tends to have a mind of its own...Mine seems to relate to much of this chapter. Its actually really strange to read a book like this and relate diease and mental illness to creativity in such a way that they become scientific components of one another. So much of this chapter was like this for me, and even the next chapter about gender. Natural, biological factors within our make up that may have been seen as flaws or "hang-ups" to some are actually almost viewed as an asset in this book. I mean the down sides are defintely mentioned but its interesting to read nonetheless. the section on alcoholism was especially fascinating to me. The fact that it was under chapter of Disease says a lot. Many dont consider alcoholism a disease. "...physiological, psychological, social and genetic factors." ...interesting
It is incredible to me also, the number and caliber of people who have been effected by disease and how it has maybe impacted their creativity. My favorite writers & artists, Matisse, Capote, Steinbeck, Pollock, Kafka, Rothko....to name a few. I have always been greatly inspired by their work. There are many others too who were not mentioned in this book.
Something else thats interesting that's not mentioned in the book is about manic depression and epilepsy/mirgraines. The book mentions that Lithium was used to treat Manic depression, it still is, but now the same meds used to treat epilesy and migraines are used to treat manic depression or bi-polar too . anit-seizures or anit-convulsants work on the brain in the same way that Lithium works as a mood stabilizer. Interesting...they kinda "correct" the same areas of the brain.
Although I am happy that this is the last blog, (mostly b/c Im off to a warm sunny beach)
...a part of me will miss it....
farewell blogging buddies.... :-)) peace
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
blog 10
I found the readings in Hughes to be very interesting this week, especially chapter 9 which dealt with creativity and disease. “In antiquity, loss of sight was connected with prophecy and poetry: music and song exist independently of sight.” Hughes use the musicians Stevie Wonder and the late Ray Charles as examples to prove his point and I would definitely agree with him. In the case of these two artists the loss of sight led to their other senses becoming more acute. I don’t think that every person who is blind is automatically a good musician, but with someone who is already musically inclined there increased sense of sound may help them to produce better sounding music. Music may also help a blind person to be creative since they can’t really paint a visual picture. Ray and Stevie are able to express themselves musically through their pianos and be creative using sound as a painter may with his brush on a canvas.
I was surprised that Hughes brought the topic of migraines up when discussing creativity. My girlfriend suffers from severe migraines and when I talked to her about what Hughes said she did agree to a certain extent about experiencing some of the mild hallucinations. I asked her if she felt creative or inspired after having a migraine and she laughed in my face. I know from watching her deal with migraines that they are in no way pleasurable. Her main concern is to find a dark quite place to lie down and wait out the pain. She does experience hallucinations in the form of stars or flashes and the geometric forms in her peripheral vision and sometimes extreme tunnel vision. I guess if she was an artist she could use the hallucinations to inspire herself to paint something, but to her there is nothing good that comes from the experience.
I was surprised that Hughes brought the topic of migraines up when discussing creativity. My girlfriend suffers from severe migraines and when I talked to her about what Hughes said she did agree to a certain extent about experiencing some of the mild hallucinations. I asked her if she felt creative or inspired after having a migraine and she laughed in my face. I know from watching her deal with migraines that they are in no way pleasurable. Her main concern is to find a dark quite place to lie down and wait out the pain. She does experience hallucinations in the form of stars or flashes and the geometric forms in her peripheral vision and sometimes extreme tunnel vision. I guess if she was an artist she could use the hallucinations to inspire herself to paint something, but to her there is nothing good that comes from the experience.
Blog 10...artiste maudit
This blog has been tough to write as these last two chapters have hit home a little. I'm glad that these things are not graded on organization.
To begin, I shall take the lighter subject that struck my interest: "...(Picasso's erotic paintings) have a playful quality which adulterate the sensuality one looks for in such work...his scenes are more amusing, delightful, and titillating than exciting." (Henry Miller, Hughes 143) For some reason I find the concept of "amusing" and "delightful" in association with scenes loaded with rape imagery to be nothing short of disgusting. I don't believe that Picasso's use of minotaur has anything to do with the duality of the artist and has more to do with his narcissistic, misogynistic tendencies. Anyone who has had more than an elementary level study on the history of modern art would understand that Picasso saw himself as nothing short of superior to women. (I also feel as though his status as "original" should be revoked in light of the work of his contemporaries, but that's another argument for another day.)
Now on the topic of the Irish drinking because it is masculine. I feel as though the only Irish Hughes knows sit in pubs having contests to see who can drink the most shots of Jameson. I would say that as an Irish-American who drinks, masculinity has nothing to do with it when it comes to art. I do not drink because it is cool, I do not drink because it is manly. Many people have hobbies, the hard thing for many artists is that we have accepted our hobbies as our careers. It is not fun having people criticize what essentially is our soul and having a little liquid therapy is not such a bad thing when given the alternatives. I also want to add that unless you are throwing down paint like Jackson Pollock, you cannot paint while drunk! Buzzed maybe, but in comparing my sober art to my drunk art I realized early on that a sound mind is needed to paint things that work. Perhaps a little absinthe loosened the internal restraints to make the idea possible in the planning phase, (and a little more after to celebrate or cope with an opening) but the actual technique came from stability.
Sober art:
Drunk art:
I'm sick of insanity and art being so closely associated. Van Gogh only sold one painting in his life. Perhaps he was concentrated to a fault, but when Van Gogh painted he cannot be called insane. Anyone who has studied Van Gogh would realize that he was unable to paint when he had his episodes. Anyone who had read his letters would realize that Van Gogh knew he had problems and was doing his best to fix them. I feel as though to obsess so much over disease detracts from the art. Crazy people cannot paint with the focus and intention that only a true artist can and when it appears focused, it is focused to such a fault that it loses any aesthetic value. It is true that many of the surrealists studied insane art, most importantly it was a window into the symbolism of the mind.
To begin, I shall take the lighter subject that struck my interest: "...(Picasso's erotic paintings) have a playful quality which adulterate the sensuality one looks for in such work...his scenes are more amusing, delightful, and titillating than exciting." (Henry Miller, Hughes 143) For some reason I find the concept of "amusing" and "delightful" in association with scenes loaded with rape imagery to be nothing short of disgusting. I don't believe that Picasso's use of minotaur has anything to do with the duality of the artist and has more to do with his narcissistic, misogynistic tendencies. Anyone who has had more than an elementary level study on the history of modern art would understand that Picasso saw himself as nothing short of superior to women. (I also feel as though his status as "original" should be revoked in light of the work of his contemporaries, but that's another argument for another day.)
Now on the topic of the Irish drinking because it is masculine. I feel as though the only Irish Hughes knows sit in pubs having contests to see who can drink the most shots of Jameson. I would say that as an Irish-American who drinks, masculinity has nothing to do with it when it comes to art. I do not drink because it is cool, I do not drink because it is manly. Many people have hobbies, the hard thing for many artists is that we have accepted our hobbies as our careers. It is not fun having people criticize what essentially is our soul and having a little liquid therapy is not such a bad thing when given the alternatives. I also want to add that unless you are throwing down paint like Jackson Pollock, you cannot paint while drunk! Buzzed maybe, but in comparing my sober art to my drunk art I realized early on that a sound mind is needed to paint things that work. Perhaps a little absinthe loosened the internal restraints to make the idea possible in the planning phase, (and a little more after to celebrate or cope with an opening) but the actual technique came from stability.
Sober art:
Drunk art:
I've noticed a similar trend with my favorite artist Modigliani. In studying his earlier works at the Metropolitan Museum of Art with his later piece (done a few months before his death) on display currently at the National Gallery, you can see what a mix of more alcohol, drugs, and worsening tuberculosis had on his style. There is nothing romantic about it. He leaves so much of the canvas untouched by paint, it appears more like a growing sense of "what's the use" than any desired style change. It is sloppy to say the least.
Eyes of painted canvas stare back at me,
Into the gloom of sorrow and regret.
I want to be alone now to pay my debt
To Venus or Eros or none of the above.
The eyes keep watching me write,
As the world becomes dark and not light.
Will you forgive me now,
Or have I exhausted all hope?
The epitaph is all that's left to be wrote.
Now for me the clock ticks away.
You are nowhere near;
Just a canvas painted in tears.
Into the gloom of sorrow and regret.
I want to be alone now to pay my debt
To Venus or Eros or none of the above.
The eyes keep watching me write,
As the world becomes dark and not light.
Will you forgive me now,
Or have I exhausted all hope?
The epitaph is all that's left to be wrote.
Now for me the clock ticks away.
You are nowhere near;
Just a canvas painted in tears.
I was about to write what I thought about the connection between creativity and sexuality/love when I decided that it was best to pull up a painting I had done in April following a tough time for me in that area. (I should also probably mention that I was sober and was using my art to cope with a really bad case of depression.)
Blog 10
This week’s reading explores a different kind of altered state from the drug-induced consciousness that we have been discussing recently. Chapter 9 sheds a different light on how we view “sickness” in our culture, from mental illness to physical disease. Hughes explores these different forms of sickness and their affect on creative consciousness.
In our culture, mental issues are seen by most people in a negative way. We want to separate and label these “abnormal” people and keep them in control. A vast number of the US population is diagnosed with some kind of disorder and given medication (which a lot of the time is misdiagnosed) in order to make them fit to work in our society. According to WeBeFit.com, approximately 44% of Americans are on some kind of prescription drug(s), which most of the time have side affects that are worse than the condition itself. Prescription drugs have proven effective in taming the condition, but limit a person’s emotional and cognitive range which inhibits the creative process. Hughes points out the ways in which physical illness and mental suffering nourishes creativity. He references many famous literary scholars, poets, painters, musicians, philosophers as having suffered from many kinds of disorders that enabled them to explore their complex inner world. One thing that famous creative minds seem to have in common is the way in which they interact with the rest of the world. Many of them explore their painful experiences and structure those experiences in ways that communicate through many different forms.
Blog #10
On page 119, Hughes makes the claim that “inner conflict is often seen as the cause of creativity.” This quote is very interesting to me not only because it’s related to what I want to research for my second paper, but it’s also interesting because I’m not sure it’s correct. Is conflict really the cause of creativity, or does it just appear this way since conflict is an inherent fact of human existence?
Hughes offers much evidence which seems to say yes to the question. The Bronte sisters and their TB, Beethoven and deafness, and Dostoyevsky with his epilepsy all seem to validate the fact that there’s a link between creativity and conflict. Anyone who has listened to one of Beethoven’s symphonies or read Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre will attest that these individuals certainly were creative. And also, considering the physical trials each one faced, it’s also easily acknowledged that each one faced conflict. Another example comes through Frida Kahlo’s painting on page 119. It’s a rather poignant image of suffering, with the tears falling down her face, the nails poking into her skin, the shattered column in her back, and the restraints wrapped around her body. It’s obvious that Kahlo’s a talented painter, but without the suffering she faced through a car accident, I’m not sure she would have been able to paint such a striking picture.
However, despite the myriad examples Hughes gives of individuals who faced conflict and were also creative, I’m still not 100% convinced there’s a correlation (or at least not one as strong as he has implied). Indeed, many of our best creatives faced conflict, but who hasn’t? With the exception of the very young—and even they have faced the trial of birth—I can think of no human who has escaped conflict. Given, some face much greater conflict than others, but it is undoubtedly something which every human faces.
Understanding this idea that everyone faces conflict, I’m now going to go a little scientific. If we were going to do an experiment in which we attempted to prove whether or not conflict is the cause of creativity we would need to place our subjects into groups. First would be our “conflict” group and second would be our “non-conflict” group. We would then observe each group and see which one came up with more creativity. If the conflict group was significantly more creative than our control, the non-conflict group, then we would have proof that creativity is caused by conflict. However, this is an experiment we can never complete because there is no conflict free person, hence there is no control.
I don’t mean to assert that there is no connection between creativity and conflict. After all, Hughes presents an impressive list of people who were both creative and conflicted. Yet, there’s also the fact that, even though it appears there’s a connection, we can’t be entirely sure there is. Whatever the answer is, I think the possible connection between creativity and conflict is a really interesting idea. Additionally, I’m excited to see what I find out when I research this idea further for my second paper.
Hughes offers much evidence which seems to say yes to the question. The Bronte sisters and their TB, Beethoven and deafness, and Dostoyevsky with his epilepsy all seem to validate the fact that there’s a link between creativity and conflict. Anyone who has listened to one of Beethoven’s symphonies or read Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre will attest that these individuals certainly were creative. And also, considering the physical trials each one faced, it’s also easily acknowledged that each one faced conflict. Another example comes through Frida Kahlo’s painting on page 119. It’s a rather poignant image of suffering, with the tears falling down her face, the nails poking into her skin, the shattered column in her back, and the restraints wrapped around her body. It’s obvious that Kahlo’s a talented painter, but without the suffering she faced through a car accident, I’m not sure she would have been able to paint such a striking picture.
However, despite the myriad examples Hughes gives of individuals who faced conflict and were also creative, I’m still not 100% convinced there’s a correlation (or at least not one as strong as he has implied). Indeed, many of our best creatives faced conflict, but who hasn’t? With the exception of the very young—and even they have faced the trial of birth—I can think of no human who has escaped conflict. Given, some face much greater conflict than others, but it is undoubtedly something which every human faces.
Understanding this idea that everyone faces conflict, I’m now going to go a little scientific. If we were going to do an experiment in which we attempted to prove whether or not conflict is the cause of creativity we would need to place our subjects into groups. First would be our “conflict” group and second would be our “non-conflict” group. We would then observe each group and see which one came up with more creativity. If the conflict group was significantly more creative than our control, the non-conflict group, then we would have proof that creativity is caused by conflict. However, this is an experiment we can never complete because there is no conflict free person, hence there is no control.
I don’t mean to assert that there is no connection between creativity and conflict. After all, Hughes presents an impressive list of people who were both creative and conflicted. Yet, there’s also the fact that, even though it appears there’s a connection, we can’t be entirely sure there is. Whatever the answer is, I think the possible connection between creativity and conflict is a really interesting idea. Additionally, I’m excited to see what I find out when I research this idea further for my second paper.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Blog Ten
Blog Ten
As we continue to venture through the Hughes book, the more recent chapters have captured my interest. Chapters nine and ten take us deep into the personal levels of creativity. As we consider and analyze the way diseases, gender, sexuality, and other altered states impact and shape creativity, we consider the humanistic aspects behind the works. While reading, I couldn’t help but think about creativity as a “face” of the creator, as in a representation of who and what the creator is. Take for example Frida Kahlo’s paintings in both chapters nine and ten. In chapter nine the “face” of her painting illustrates the pain she suffered a tragic road accident in 1925, moreover she taught herself to paint. Later in chapter ten we see another self-portrait with tones of despair, sexuality, sadness, and torment all illustrating a relationship she had with Diego Rivera. Another example is the excerpt on Picasso on page 143, explaining the Minotaur and Dead Mare in Front of a Cave. This picture is a symbol of who Picasso is, and his themes reflect his inner attitudes of a specific period of his life. Certainly creators can create works thorough another “face” different from their own, by placing themselves in another’s shoes if you will, but through these chapters I think Hughes wants us to embrace humanistic uniqueness through diverse altered states within or capable by ourselves.
There was a specific point in the reading that made me stop and think: “In the western world, madness—once thought to be divinely inspired—came to be thought of as mental illness. He (Foucault) believed that Western societies have traditionally repressed the creative force of madness (126).” And I think Hughes nails it on the head when he goes on to later say “There are so many value judgments involved in definitions of both creativity and madness (127).” No doubt. Are we not conditioned to steer clear of people who exhibit traits of madness and overzealous eccentricity? And don't many who suffer from a form of mind sickness make it a priority to disguise their illness? Many forms of altered states, drug use, depression, alcoholism, schizophrenia are not discussed publicly, and are viewed negatively. Therefore, I think it is interesting Hughes combines these specific altered states with epilepsy, migraines, cancer, sensory deprivation, and pain. When considering this second set of altered states we tend to have more sympathy, and not so much negativity. Is it because when we think of drug users, and alcohol abusers we think the user can control their condition and therefore we are less willing to sympathize, perhaps the schizophrenia is just “all in the person’s head”... Whereas illnesses such as cancer and sensory deprivation is out of our control, and therefore we agree it is okay to empathize and get closer to the situation? I think it goes back to personal value judgments on what exactly creativity and madness means to each of us--our perception. And I think Huges wants us to take a step back and analyze these perceptions.
Lastly, I went to youtube to see if I could find a clip of Derek Jarman’s (who died of AIDS in 1994) “Blue” video, I was interested to see what it was all about. Here is a link to his piece of work: A perfect example of an altered state inspiring creativity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_-B1klXl3U
As we continue to venture through the Hughes book, the more recent chapters have captured my interest. Chapters nine and ten take us deep into the personal levels of creativity. As we consider and analyze the way diseases, gender, sexuality, and other altered states impact and shape creativity, we consider the humanistic aspects behind the works. While reading, I couldn’t help but think about creativity as a “face” of the creator, as in a representation of who and what the creator is. Take for example Frida Kahlo’s paintings in both chapters nine and ten. In chapter nine the “face” of her painting illustrates the pain she suffered a tragic road accident in 1925, moreover she taught herself to paint. Later in chapter ten we see another self-portrait with tones of despair, sexuality, sadness, and torment all illustrating a relationship she had with Diego Rivera. Another example is the excerpt on Picasso on page 143, explaining the Minotaur and Dead Mare in Front of a Cave. This picture is a symbol of who Picasso is, and his themes reflect his inner attitudes of a specific period of his life. Certainly creators can create works thorough another “face” different from their own, by placing themselves in another’s shoes if you will, but through these chapters I think Hughes wants us to embrace humanistic uniqueness through diverse altered states within or capable by ourselves.
There was a specific point in the reading that made me stop and think: “In the western world, madness—once thought to be divinely inspired—came to be thought of as mental illness. He (Foucault) believed that Western societies have traditionally repressed the creative force of madness (126).” And I think Hughes nails it on the head when he goes on to later say “There are so many value judgments involved in definitions of both creativity and madness (127).” No doubt. Are we not conditioned to steer clear of people who exhibit traits of madness and overzealous eccentricity? And don't many who suffer from a form of mind sickness make it a priority to disguise their illness? Many forms of altered states, drug use, depression, alcoholism, schizophrenia are not discussed publicly, and are viewed negatively. Therefore, I think it is interesting Hughes combines these specific altered states with epilepsy, migraines, cancer, sensory deprivation, and pain. When considering this second set of altered states we tend to have more sympathy, and not so much negativity. Is it because when we think of drug users, and alcohol abusers we think the user can control their condition and therefore we are less willing to sympathize, perhaps the schizophrenia is just “all in the person’s head”... Whereas illnesses such as cancer and sensory deprivation is out of our control, and therefore we agree it is okay to empathize and get closer to the situation? I think it goes back to personal value judgments on what exactly creativity and madness means to each of us--our perception. And I think Huges wants us to take a step back and analyze these perceptions.
Lastly, I went to youtube to see if I could find a clip of Derek Jarman’s (who died of AIDS in 1994) “Blue” video, I was interested to see what it was all about. Here is a link to his piece of work: A perfect example of an altered state inspiring creativity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_-B1klXl3U
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)