![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The way you teach crazy is crazy
May. 24th, 2012 07:49 pm Today at work I was asked to help fill a gap in staffing and help invigilate an A Level exam, which I duly did. Turns out standing about in a stiflingly hot room for 75 mins is really dull - who knew right? Luckily, the exam was in a classroom which meant that - excepting the noticeboards whose displays were hidden under plain paper lest their contents unfairly influence the exam outcome - there was stuff to read on the walls as I paced the aisles.
This particular classroom is used to teach sociology and psychology in. A recent homework was, evidently, for students to produce paintings which they might have painted if they had schizophrenia and were in Art therapy. Yes. Really. Aside from the fact that such a task is blindingly stupid, does nothing to advance their understanding of psychology and psycho therapy, and 'paint a picture' isn't really an A Level-level piece of work the content of the work put on the wall disturbed me.
The students almost universally divided the piece of paper in half and labelled one side 'sane' and one side 'insane'. Universally the 'insane' side was imprecisely painted and distorted in some way. Most of the students made some sort of reference - either in subject or colour - to the now famous 'Schizophrenic Cat' pictures.
The thing that distresses me most is that this is social psychology and not clinical psychology they are studying and they are being taught there is a definitive line between 'sane' and 'insane'. It's simply stupid to suggest it it anything like that clear cut. And here, in a popular A Level course, is the opportunity to teach a whole load of people that 'sane' and 'crazy' don't make two sets of people, one of whom should be disadvantaged and marginalised by virtue of an imprecise medical label.
There is also a disturbing lack of critical perception in the use of 'altered perception' art to illustrate the impact of schizophrenia on the way someone sees the world. All art is, after all, a distortion of reality. Take any visual art - even photo realism painting - and what you have is not the thing, but a representation of the thing, a mirror to the world. That one artist over the course of his career produced paintings of the same subject which bore less rigorous resemblance to the physical reality of the subject is not definitive evidence of the impact of schizophrenia on perception for all people who have schizophrenia. Conversely, must we conclude that all art which abstracts its subject is evidence of chemical imbalance? Patently not.
In my limited experience creating art I can state categorically that at different parts of day, in different moods, in different times the work I produce varies wildly. I could present two self portraits I did within months of each other which differ in almost every way and whilst a proponent of "mental illness can be seen in artistic output" theory may point to my own mood disorder as an explanation of the difference I would and will only describe it as part of the creative process. Moreover, art seeks to see the world in new ways - artists seek to find new way to express themselves and convey information about what they see - or want you, the viewer, to see. In short, if an artist's lifetime portfolio didn't develop and change I would argue they had failed in their artistic pursuit.
In summary? Teaching students that 'insanity' is about crossing a clear line is stupid. Attempting to prove the existence of this crazy/sane line using art is idiotic.
This particular classroom is used to teach sociology and psychology in. A recent homework was, evidently, for students to produce paintings which they might have painted if they had schizophrenia and were in Art therapy. Yes. Really. Aside from the fact that such a task is blindingly stupid, does nothing to advance their understanding of psychology and psycho therapy, and 'paint a picture' isn't really an A Level-level piece of work the content of the work put on the wall disturbed me.
The students almost universally divided the piece of paper in half and labelled one side 'sane' and one side 'insane'. Universally the 'insane' side was imprecisely painted and distorted in some way. Most of the students made some sort of reference - either in subject or colour - to the now famous 'Schizophrenic Cat' pictures.
The thing that distresses me most is that this is social psychology and not clinical psychology they are studying and they are being taught there is a definitive line between 'sane' and 'insane'. It's simply stupid to suggest it it anything like that clear cut. And here, in a popular A Level course, is the opportunity to teach a whole load of people that 'sane' and 'crazy' don't make two sets of people, one of whom should be disadvantaged and marginalised by virtue of an imprecise medical label.
There is also a disturbing lack of critical perception in the use of 'altered perception' art to illustrate the impact of schizophrenia on the way someone sees the world. All art is, after all, a distortion of reality. Take any visual art - even photo realism painting - and what you have is not the thing, but a representation of the thing, a mirror to the world. That one artist over the course of his career produced paintings of the same subject which bore less rigorous resemblance to the physical reality of the subject is not definitive evidence of the impact of schizophrenia on perception for all people who have schizophrenia. Conversely, must we conclude that all art which abstracts its subject is evidence of chemical imbalance? Patently not.
In my limited experience creating art I can state categorically that at different parts of day, in different moods, in different times the work I produce varies wildly. I could present two self portraits I did within months of each other which differ in almost every way and whilst a proponent of "mental illness can be seen in artistic output" theory may point to my own mood disorder as an explanation of the difference I would and will only describe it as part of the creative process. Moreover, art seeks to see the world in new ways - artists seek to find new way to express themselves and convey information about what they see - or want you, the viewer, to see. In short, if an artist's lifetime portfolio didn't develop and change I would argue they had failed in their artistic pursuit.
In summary? Teaching students that 'insanity' is about crossing a clear line is stupid. Attempting to prove the existence of this crazy/sane line using art is idiotic.
