Wednesday, April 22, 2009

An equal madness

This was prompted by a question I posed to a friend yesterday. While it was rooted in the normal random thass we indulge in daily, the levels it has managed to take me across, is, well simply put, awe-some.

“What is the motive behind any form of artistic expression?”

And the answer, that I have found, bounded by the limitations of rational logic and experience that plague me, is as follows:

--

What runs through our veins, as thinking, intelligent human persons, is a continuous stream of colourless, unthinking, ethereal madness.
We are, by creation, ‘not-sane’.

What we appear to be during our daily interactions and motions, is at best a leashed, chained shadow of our true selves. And no matter how many layers of civilization, evolution and perfunctorization we hide our selves under; the underlying truth of our identities has a knack of always rising and opening our eyes to previously uncharted domains.

Further, the fleeting nature of this true, unaffected, honest life, means we are eternally living an existence of uneasy, self-imposed compromise. What Thoreau described as a life of “quiet desperation”, fits in snugly here as well. It is an invisible, sublime, and indeed, a pure form of elemental desperation one experiences at all points in time, which chooses to keep itself comfortably concealed mostly, only to reveal itself at the hours one perceives to be the darkest of one’s existence.

Artistes, have a language to speak in.
The choice of words is deliberate, and stands clarified as follows.
What purpose does a language serve, if one remains handicapped to connect with one’s own true self through it?
An artiste is one, who can interact with his very fabric, (and through it, perhaps with Him as well), through his language.
Thus, one observes, that the definition of the term ‘artiste’ somewhat paradoxically expands in a manner that could potentially include all of humanity in its fold, while simultaneously narrowing itself down by the added qualifier of self-conversation.

The point I am driving to, through this amazingly meandering little path, is thus, the underlying motive of any form of artistic expression, is to live a moment of the madness that one is born with; to escape from the educated rules propounded by civilization and society; to find one’s own self among the millions of shadows that cloud our very consciousness.

One may look at the entire argument from the reverse angle, and deduce that anything which allows one to free one’s mind; to lose one’s time variant image of the self; indeed, to indulge in some of the forbidden madness that lies hidden deep within our cores, is thus artistic.

While this may seem appealing and interesting at first, as images of Mozart losing himself in Don Giovanni; of Newton letting go of the world in his brand of Mathematical Physics; of an aging ascetic smiling up at the heavens in spite (or perhaps because!) of the sores all over his body, come to mind.

For the sake of self criticism, I shall quote instances of madness that might not quite seem as artistic: Hitler and his holocaust, the protagonist in ‘A Clockwork Orange’, Jack the Ripper, and many, many more.
On instances such as these, I believe, that if, the activities indulged in by the persons respectively, did indeed bring them face to face with their latent selves; if they did experience that lightness of being that comes with drinking in the madness, then yes, for their socially distorted selves, their trade, was their art; their channel to all truth, madness, bliss.

This point in time is as ripe as ever, to clarify on one minor point.
Genocide, rape and murder are crimes against humanity, no doubt. But the unthinking, essential madness in us, need not know that.
In fact, what might seem revolting in the case of Hitler, seems heroic when it appears in Newton; for it was after all a common, colourless, unbiased trait of pure madness that propelled both to drive on relentlessly, to heights previously unheard of, albeit in different directions.

As (nearly) rational humans, one would expect us to be able to differentiate between the essential force behind diverse actions ion one hand, and the variance of direction between them, on the other. Thus, what drove Hitler and Newton, and any other sage/musician/psychopath/saint/hero/legend, must boil down to one, common madness.

We’re all born the same.
What we choose to do with our most prized endowment, our madness, defines what we become.

All forms of ‘artistic expression’, are thus, simple desperate attempts at reaching closer to that which is truly us; an undying, unaffected, immovable, and essentially equal, madness.

--

Good day at work this was!

10 comments:

Unknown said...

true...very true!!! art is a sign of your true self..it is an avenue to bear your soul in public, without any inhibitions!!!! which is why it is so rejuvenating...it is after all, "the" moment of truth!!

Justin said...

More than the bearing your soul in public, i had imagined it as one of those channels which brings one closer to one's own self, and thus, bearing your soul to yourself, or perhaps vice versa..
the public i had pictured as coming in 1 step later.. given how the "truth" is so easily lost in the jungles of rhetoric et al today..

but then again, u'd kno better.. :)

coming frm u, this means a lot..
thnx very much!

gazz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gazz said...

sahi hai be..but I wouldnt go on to call the actions of murderes (Jack the ripper), rapists, child-molesters (rememeber Nithari and the perpetrator Kohli) and others like them as the expression of artisits or compare them per say at par with artistic expressions.. I agree that under layers of foilage of civility, everyone has something raw, unpolished..but HItler and Ripper dude were in no way cool..nor were their actions..because I think their actions, were a result of complex societal,historical and other n number of dynamic parameters..accding to which they didn't want to adjust..but certainly not their latent selves..Sure they derived pleasure from what they did(and they were good at it) but all the feelings and behaviours are again based on rules of society.. what is bad or good, the morality and character etc etc..It is us , who decide and proclaim righteousness of actions..and the rules keep on changing from time to time and place to place.

Justin said...

@gazz..
No, Hitler and Kihli and all the others were not artistes in my books; nor were they in those of much of humanity..
but thats where the disclaimer comes in, in the form of the following 2 points...:

1. building on what you said, the rules on which we base righteousness et al, are in the end bounded by the limitations of social perceivability and the likes..

2. and my point remains, that:
"On instances such as these, I believe, that if, the activities indulged in by the persons respectively, did indeed bring them face to face with their latent selves; if they did experience that lightness of being that comes with drinking in the madness, then yes, for their socially distorted selves, their trade, was their art; their channel to all truth, madness, bliss."yes, in all probability no latent self revealed itself, and no ethereal, pure madness flowed; and also, it was all perhaps a result of disturbed childhoods and social cruelties..
BUT, by point one above, and a healthy disrespect for the often overrated human rational logic and consciousness, one can not rule out the possibility of it all actually being a form of truth for the poor psychopath..

a psychopath, is basically a conscience-impaired human being.. and he deserves some form of care, similar to how we look at any other challenged people around us..

thus, there is a small, a very, very small chance, (probblity = delta, where delta is an infinitesimally small, but undeniably positive value), that hitler and mozart were both of the same league of genius, pure, undiluted madmen...

as a rational human being, u must see this by now... :)

neeraj_rana said...

I am not sure whether to call it madness or not... Before coming to "The madness" I want to raise few question..

Does an artist, i mean a 'true artist', really need "a motive" to express his artistic vision to him/to world ?

Isn't it enough to feel love, however small it may be,towards anything to express yourself artistically?

It's very true that the artistic expression, in a way, connects an artist to his inner self and I also agree with the fact that there is a continuous stream of colourless, unthinking, ethereal unknown substance flowing in our veins, which COULD BE at times called madness. But it can also be referred to as frustration, anger, love depending upon the situation one is facing.

Coming to the madness, I really liked the concept " Artistes, have a language to speak in." which actually broadens the frame of whom to call an artist. Lekin kintu parantu..... don't you think that by referring the motive as madness you are actually again narrowing down the frame that you have so beautifully broadened. I mean not all of us can express ourself with madness, some prefer it in a queit way, others may want to do it in some other way.... itna freedom toh i think humein logon ko dena chahiye....

Justin said...

@Neeraj...
1. Yes, the love you feel towards anything, irrespective of how small/big/trivial it may be, should be enough reason for you to express yourself artistically...
In that case, that is your motive, the love.
My use of the term 'motive' shud not be confused with the dark, worldly, ulterior angles that have grown to be attached with it..
all i asked was, 'why' doea an artiste do what (s)he does...

2. yes... the continuous stream could contain any of the emotions u hav mentioned. But I guess my post implicitly stated an added theorem, (which i realized just now)
"any emotion, in its purest, unrestrained, unleashed form, is equivalent to madness."
here u must also remove the social biases against the term 'madness'. for a while, just think of it as "a state of extreme emotion, perhaps considered abnormal/disturbed by social norms."

think about it, right from the all-too-well-documented madness of love, to the dark side of uncontrolled rage, to everything.. madness is at the core of everything..

3. "...not all of us can express ourself with madness, some prefer it in a queit way, others may want to do it in some other way..."

exactly, very tru.
but i never said that 'madness' has to be a loud, explosion of emotion and the likes.
refer to the definition given above again, and u'll realize, that my take on the 'purpose' behind artistic expression et al, is a rare, pure, honest interaction with one's core (which as stated in the post, and by the definition above, is madness).
thus, all you need to be an artiste, is the courage to face ur true 'mad' self, and the means shall follow automatically.. the means cud be heavy metal, poetry, silence, cookery, gardening, painting, soldiering etc.
again, it is also imp. to realize, that by the definition stated, just bcoz u ARE indulging in one or more of the above meantioned 'arts', does not mk u an artiste. what matters is the honesty of the expression, the level of 'madness' achieved, indeed, all that matters, is, in one word, the bhaav.

neeraj_rana said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
neeraj_rana said...

# Understanding madness

"...any emotion, in its purest, unrestrained, unleashed form, is equivalent to madness."

I think this theorem has made things a little bit more clear to me... After reading the corresponding blogpost and the following comments i have understood madness as follows

An emotions overtakes one in such a manner that it starts flowing in every single bloodstream of their's. One can feel it in their brain, limbs, lungs et al. It starts throbbing in their whole body. That one moment (howsoever small it may be) when one feel this (and many other things which I am not be able to include here) i think at that point one feels pure madness....

And if you will think a little deeply you would realize that you can categorize madness as madness of love, madness of anger, madness of fury, madness of frustration etc

Coming back to the original question and the corresponding answer that what motivates an artist for the artistic expression? the answer to which you proposed was madness...

I would like to add to your answer that it is the madness of love which motivates an artist for the artistic expression....

#Hitler's madness

Hitler's action were more of a result of madness of anger towards a particular community and if i will take each word as a unit then there is 67% similarity between Hitler's and Mozart's motive but its the remaining 33% that makes the difference.


What i am trying to point out is when you say the motive behind the artistic expression then first of all it's important to delineate what we describe as art,otherwise it's a little uncomfortable for people (which includes me) to put together madness of love(read Mozart) and madness of anger (read Hitler)....

A small observation about this blogpost is you have included everything that is a result of madness as ART... which I don't say is wrong but it requires a little explanation or disclaimer from your side to make things clear to the reader.

Justin said...

i dont think the artiste's madness is necessarily confined to that of love.. even if one were to consider only classical artistes, im sure there is enuff scope for other madnesses to form the purpose as well.. perhaps not psychopathic rage, but madness of despair, of melancholia, of pure bliss, et al are defnitly there..

@hitler vs mozart...
firstly, we assume that both of them satisfy criteria to be called artistes, by the definition provided.. after that, i'd say that both were touched, tho by different forms of madness.. also, which expressed itself thru diffrent means.. thus the diffrence..

and yes.. things cud hav been made clearer im sure..
but such is what happens wen one tries to address insane-level topics.. :)

Cheers to South Park!

Q. - While people will always act within the bounds of human nature -- good people being good and bad people being bad, it takes religion to make good people bad.

A. - "Well, many religions also give people good reasons NOT to do bad things. And while people may do terrible things in the name of religion or via religion, they may have well still done them without the religion there -- it's just a justification provided for a choice already made."

-- Matt Stone & Trey Parker
(From South Park FAQ's)

Bet you didn't expect THIS from the ones who made Cartman and the gang! :)

Dilbert

Beatlemania!!!

Beatlemania!!!

BBC Sport | Football

BBC Sport | Formula 1