DanceswithwordsEthics in art.
November 17th 2006 03:37
the last words of a dying man named jeannot are now a popular art exhibit. These words were etched into a household basements floorboards by a man who suffered from severe paranoid schizophrenia. After the death of this middle aged man from france, the floorboards were excavated, evaluated, circulated and are now an artistic sensation throughout Europe. They are part of a relatively new post modern phenomenon called 'brut art'. A movement that showcases the work of those enduring various kinds of mental illness.
Jeannot’s story is one plagued by ignorance, negligence and tragedy. But it is the last year of his life I will tell in brief. After the death of his mother, basically his only companion for 35 years, he moved his bed into a small, cramped room, next to a decaying staircase under which he had buried her. His movement was confined only to carving words into the floorboards, using any implement he could find. He gave a voice to the thoughts that were consuming him, for months he wrote without cessation of things such as the machines that controlled the human mind and the horrendous things the Catholic Church had done in subservience to Hitler. Eventually Jeannot died of starvation. He had not bothered to feed himself and was found months later by a neighbour, lying atop the chaotic thoughts that he could no longer silence.
I do not endorse the way that these words were excavated and flown around Europe. I did not raise the issue because I agree with what was done. I did it to get people to think, to question and to evaluate their own beliefs. Should it be considered art? Should it be considered exploitation? Should the intention of the artist be a defining characteristic? What do you think of the fact that the tour of Jeannot’s floorboards is sponsored by a pharmaceutical company? Does it highlight a condition that because of a social convention is surrounded by so much silence? Will it do anything for sufferers of schizophrenia or further stigmatise them? Can one even define such a thing as sanity? Or discriminate against different truths?
Let me know your thoughts.
Jeannot’s story is one plagued by ignorance, negligence and tragedy. But it is the last year of his life I will tell in brief. After the death of his mother, basically his only companion for 35 years, he moved his bed into a small, cramped room, next to a decaying staircase under which he had buried her. His movement was confined only to carving words into the floorboards, using any implement he could find. He gave a voice to the thoughts that were consuming him, for months he wrote without cessation of things such as the machines that controlled the human mind and the horrendous things the Catholic Church had done in subservience to Hitler. Eventually Jeannot died of starvation. He had not bothered to feed himself and was found months later by a neighbour, lying atop the chaotic thoughts that he could no longer silence.
I do not endorse the way that these words were excavated and flown around Europe. I did not raise the issue because I agree with what was done. I did it to get people to think, to question and to evaluate their own beliefs. Should it be considered art? Should it be considered exploitation? Should the intention of the artist be a defining characteristic? What do you think of the fact that the tour of Jeannot’s floorboards is sponsored by a pharmaceutical company? Does it highlight a condition that because of a social convention is surrounded by so much silence? Will it do anything for sufferers of schizophrenia or further stigmatise them? Can one even define such a thing as sanity? Or discriminate against different truths?
Let me know your thoughts.
| 135 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by suitably*wounded
Eternal Days; Author: Illness, M.
After that, to attempt to answer you questions....
Should it be considered art? We generally accept what we self-identify as art that is derived / created from pain. I can't see this as much different.
Should it be considered exploitation? I suppose that depends on the context. As the new book by O.J. Simpson circulates, I'm positive that most people would feel his "If I'd done it, this would have been how...." to be exploitive to say the least. But something that focuses light on a little understood area, in my humble opinion, would make the good outweigh the bad.
Should the intention of the artist be a defining characteristic? Why would it? Is it ever now, in cases where the originator is 'normal'? And if not, don't we even allow the Mansons and Dahmers of the world this kind of outlet, if the proceeds benefit the victims and their families. I'd rather this be the option than not. Thought police are a terrifying idea.
What do you think of the fact that the tour of Jeannot’s floorboards is sponsored by a pharmaceutical company? Now that sounds circumspect. I can't imagine that their primary goals are altruistic, informative or helpful. I imagine they only hope to push their agenda of turning a profit and gaining publicity. I'm sure they're relying on the 'trainwreck affect' to bring in folks to the exhibition. Thereby, for those that are put off by it in whatever manner, still generates a spotlight on their drug and more and more press.
Does it highlight a condition that because of a social convention is surrounded by so much silence? I believe it could. The amount of coverage, and sadly, public outrage / outcry would be the determining factor. Oh, and how much that surrounds it furthers ignorance instead of facts.
Will it do anything for sufferers of schizophrenia or further stigmatise them? I don't suffer from that particular condition, but I know of a few who do and listening to their experiences, I can't fathom much that would make them feel even more stigmatized. Again, issues brought to the fore eventually meet acceptance and understanding.
Can one even define such a thing as sanity? Only with the limited current standards we have to function by. Psychology is only so far advanced, right? Mores are fluid and conditional. Combine those with the future and our opinions will obviously change.
Or discriminate against different truths? Possibly. But isn't that the way it always works? Address one problem and correct it, another readily takes its place. That truly appears to be the cycle of humanity.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
A prior question to answer is whether one wants to use the word "art" prescriptively (to exclude some things), or descriptively (merely describing how the concept is applied in everyday usage).
Should it be considered exploitation? Well, the guy's dead. So... Whether it's irreverent to his memory and for some reason unethical on those grounds is a different question.
What do you think of the fact that the tour of Jeannot’s floorboards is sponsored by a pharmaceutical company? Aren't most exhibitions sponsored by corporations?
Does it highlight a condition that because of a social convention is surrounded by so much silence? Will it do anything for sufferers of schizophrenia or further stigmatise them? Yes to the first (how could it be argued otherwise?). Who knows about the second.
Can one even define such a thing as sanity? Yes, statistically, but, for various reasons, one mightn't want to, inasmuch as it's a normative notion.
Or discriminate against different truths? Is there such a thing as "different truths"? Isn't there an obvious sense in which a table either is there or isn't, and that there's a fact of the matter?