Reviews
does art have the intrinsic power to heal us? or rather...are all artists bad before they become artists?
yes, yes, i know.....the snobbery that that exists betwixt the 'professionals' and those suffering from mental illness (art therapy) is clearly evident...but why I ask you?
surely, if we are all honest with ourselves, hasn't being artists helped us to avoid:
1)prison
2)the sanitorium(nuthouse((U.K.))
3)suicide
4)wallowing in our own little puddle of self pity
5)poverty
6)office jobs(links back to 2))
7)becoming stale, boring, subservient gits
8)outrageous drug abuse
etc etc
Personally, I'm intrigued......the world could implode any minute but there'd still be an artist there to document it! to either rationalise or irationalise it of course!
surely, if we are all honest with ourselves, hasn't being artists helped us to avoid:
1)prison
2)the sanitorium(nuthouse((U.K.))
3)suicide
4)wallowing in our own little puddle of self pity
5)poverty
6)office jobs(links back to 2))
7)becoming stale, boring, subservient gits
8)outrageous drug abuse
etc etc
Personally, I'm intrigued......the world could implode any minute but there'd still be an artist there to document it! to either rationalise or irationalise it of course!
Tags: anti, art, healing, holistic, recovery, reprobate, therapy
Replies to This Reviews
-
Permalink Reply by Noel Fignier on -
Thank you Amy for your references and beauty definition.(It is true, but I am not such a fan of dumps!)
On a human face, ugliness may turn the expression beautiful and reflect the greatness of its inner force which forces us to love it, out from our cultural criteria.
Well.. Art never healed anybody, but allows to give birth to an unconscious part, satisfying a part of the person's subliminal, allows the freedom of a spirit's part which reacts in full individuality at the moment when it receives it, to be.
Thus, according to ones' background and choices, art creates a visual effect and an inner welfare.
What originates this process is the subliminal part of art.
Of course it depends on every individual's metaphysic and psychology.
According to these, art shows back a mirror to be identified to, and satisfies unconscious parts, bringing still a concrete effect (welfare or not) due to the acceptation or no acceptation of one's metaphysical psychology. It is the reason why it is used in hospitals, particularly in psychiatric hospitals. The body can heal by itself, the spirit cannot do so, as it is confronted to rules that are not in conformity with Nature's Law, to be able to live in society.
-
Permalink Reply by mike hinc on -
Noel
Yes but moreso - "art shows back a mirror" - and the mirror is warped.
Today Art refracts - it no longer reflects.
-
Permalink Reply by joanna lazzarini on -
maybe we are just all looking for reasurance that other people understand our insanity or al least we feel better for sharing it
-
Permalink Reply by D. Lee Ted on -
To your questions, Joe:
1) Prison, no.
2) Nuthouse, no.
3) Suicide, no.
4) Self pity, yes, though it creates self pity, too. This zeroes out.
5) Poverty, ah, see 4.
6) Office jobs, some of us have them, see 5.
7) Becoming stale, boring, subservient gits ... art can be stale, boring, and subservient (a.k.a derivative).
8) Outrageous drug abuse, yes.
-
Permalink Reply by loco on -
i believe that people who are doing graffiti in the streets can not be truly showing everyone who they are and following their dreams but being a prick
-
Permalink Reply by mike hinc on
-
You know Deirdre...I've thought a lot about this and I hate to gainsay you but I think you are wrong. Rocks do think...just very slowly and in a language we don't understand.
-
Permalink Reply by Deirdre A. Fox on -
If you have rocks thinking, why very slowly? Inertness / lack of physical movement means slow thinking? Since rocks need not devote energy to moving or biological processes, they can devote all they have to thinking and end up thinking very fast, assuming one needs energy think. And why presume a language you don't understand? Maybe if you heard them, you'd understand them.
In a word, bunk.
-
Permalink Reply by mica d'orleans on -
i am not sure to what degree it heals us. i rather think that many artists gravitate toward their medium because they are unable to conform to someone else's reality that is passed on as "the realilty". they see through this facade and are unable to live with it, so they go where they show talent or for their passion as a perfect outlet... it is only those who stick with it that become true artists.
-
Permalink Reply by mike hinc on
-
Deirdre - Can rocks think? I believe they can. I have no evidence to prove they can, just as you have no evidence to prove that they can’t. And I am entitled to cherish my belief just as much as those who believe in God, or Democracy, or the Tooth Fairy.
Descartes is with me on this: If “I think therefore I am”, then surely, if I am therefore I think? Rocks are, therefore they think. Indeed - given Descartes - rocks could not “be”, did they not think.
If we take the view that things only exist in the mind, then rocks exist only when we look at them and if we look away and think of things other than rocks, then they should not exist. But we have strong empirical evidence to the contrary. We turn away and the rock stays there, being a rock, rocking in its rock world, rocklike and implacable. When so unobserved, what keeps it there – so rock steady it its rocky environment? Not us but other rocks, of course. Rocks observing other rocks in a community of rocks thinking rock like things, eagled eyed for deviant unrocklike behaviour. Every third rock is in the pay of the secret police. It’s worse than the former German Democratic Republic – they tell me. And speaking of intolerance - what kind of redundant cultural colonialism entitles you to dismiss my beliefs as “Bunk”?
I think you are both wrong and rude. And so do the rocks.
-
Permalink Reply by Deirdre A. Fox on
-
Mike, I am not sure Descartes thought his sentence, "I think therefore I am," was transitive, but I'll stop discussing philosophical questions with you since you apparently felt offended. As for what entitles me to my opinion, the same things that entitle you to yours. Disagreement is not rude (you previously dismissed another person's views as "bunkum" -- I suppose the "um" makes all the difference?) though labeling another's contrary view as redundant cultural colonialism might be.
-
Permalink Reply by Jo Hurlow on -
Why would artists be more notably bad than a critic, curator or a scientist?
How does art heal badness?
-
Permalink Reply by Patricia Fernández Miranda (Pafermi) on -
Muchas veces hay una idea erronea del "artista". Extravagante,snob,psiquicamente no centrado, en fin alguien desclasado.
Sí creo que el artista tiene un sexto sentido, adsorbe información que para otros pasa inadvertida, como esos radares que detectan hasta los vuelos espías.Esta cualidad o diferencia innata hace que su comportamiento muchas veces no sea comprendido.
Y me pongo como ejemplo, en mi familia no hay ni pintores, ni escritores, mas bien son muy prácticos y pragmáticos. Para ellos antes era la "rara", ahora hoy por hoy me siguen considerando diferente, pero con una mirada paternalista, es decir :"A estas alturas, dejémosla por perdida".
Por otra parte, considerarme "artista" aun me cuesta, es un ardid por no pecar de petulante. Hace años participaba en reuniones de escritores, mi poesía se leía allí(no por mí que padezco de un miedo al protagonismo), y en ocasiones me llamaban "poetisa", ¡esa palabra me resultaba tan lejana!, yo era alguien que escribía poesía, o que jugando con las palabras, intentaba dar una explicación sobre una situación, así tambien veo mi trabajo con los colores, es un juego, mi cerebro es autónomo, es el receptor de mensajes, mis manos herramientas, es por eso que la palabra "artista" no llega a convencerme, es muy halagador que te distingan por esto, pero soy un medio, un vehiculo de algo que no se explicar.
Many times there is a mistaken idea of the "artist". Flamboyant, snob, not mentally focused, finally someone classlessness.
I do believe that the artist has a sixth sense, adsorbs information for others go unnoticed, such as radars that detect until flights.That quality or innate difference makes their behavior often is not understood.
And I wear as an example, in my family there are no painters or writers, but they are very practical and pragmatic. For them I was before the "rare", now today, they still feel different, but with a look paternalistic, say: "At this point, let her for loss."
On the other hand, consider "artist" even for me, is a ruse for not too petulant. Years ago participated in meetings of writers, read my poetry there (not by me that I have a fear of the protagonist), and sometimes I call her "poet", the word I was so far away!, I was someone who wrote poetry or playing with words, trying to give an explanation for a situation, I see my work too well with the colors, is a game, my brain is autonomous, is the recipient of messages, my hand tools, that is why the word "artist" fails to convince me, it is very flattering that distinguish you for this, but I am half, a vehicle for something that does not explain.
Forgive my bad English.
