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