Blogpost 6: Depiction of Media

I remembered watching films like, “We need to talk about Kevin” where Kevin a psychopath or sociopath boy decides to murder his classmates and his family members using bow and arrow, then “American Psycho” where a wealthy businessman murders people and animals whenever something upsets him, and of course “Wonderland” where a schizophrenic man goes on a shooting spree in Times Square. Are you seeing a pattern here? Look at how those movies portray a mentally disturbed person; they make them violent in the movies like they are very dangerous to the society.

In an article I’ve read entitles “Movies Stigmatize Mentally Ill as Violent and Dangerous” in brainblogger.com written by Elise Stobbe, she says that in reality mentally ill person does not more likely to commit a crime, rather, they are the ones who became victims of the crime. Well of course there are some “rare” cases that a mentally ill person becomes so violent that he started to hurt other people.

Elise Stobbe also said that “This sensationalism, combined with other factors such as the stigmatization of the mentally ill resulting from portrayals of dangerous and violent mentally ill people in films, results in injustice and prejudice to the great majority of the non-violent mentally ill.”

People with mental illness in the movie were depicted as violent, dangerous, demonic and crueler. These kinds of stigma are not helping the mentally ill person and as I have said in my last blog, if this continue they will have a hard time asking for help. Because people fear them and if you are afraid of something you tend to have a distance with him. And I bet that these mentally ill people are more afraid of themselves than we are already afraid of them.

As I continue my research about the portrayals in films, I’ve come across an article entitled “Mental Illness: How the Media Contributes To Its Stigma” in everydayfeminism.com written by Jarune Uwujaren. She carefully explains every myth people have on mentall illness in her article. She said that portrayals of mental illness in media are so inaccurate, but then again media does not want to educate us they only want to entertain us.

She also said “The fact is, you’re more likely to see scantily clad women getting lobotomized in an old school mental asylum than you are a sensitive media portrayal of mental illness or the mental health industry.”

We enjoy seeing these kinds of portrayals in films right? Halloween movie night, we pick the psychological thriller film, why? Because it amuses us; we enjoy the part where a mentally ill guy randomly kills everyone or the part that he kills people who hurt him. The problem is that we as audience believed that we are fully educated in about the mental illness but the truth is we are not. Those we’ve seen in movies or television were just for pure entertainment. And you know why they still do that? Because we like the stereotypes and stigma the media shows us.

Blogpost 5: Stigma and Discrimination

Back in high school I remember this one schoolmate of mine; he is my year actually. People used to avoid him because of his unusualness: he was often seen talking to himself or talking the plants or he would run across our hallway and shout random things, and if you are wondering, yes he was diagnosed with a mental disorder which I have forgotten the name of the illness. Okay so despite all his weird behavior he ranked first on our entrance examination and on the top of the class (in the elite section). But I cannot deny that I used to avoid him too, because I was afraid of him and I always thought that I could not keep up with his behavior. So one day, he was in my class (elective class) and sat beside, what I was not expecting that he would talk to me. And you know what I had enjoyed talking to him; learning how he perceives life. I suddenly realized the stigma and discrimination the people with illness have faced.

I tried to research more about this stigma in mental illness and saw an article “Understanding the impact of stigma on people with mental illness” in ncbi.nlm.nih.gov which was written by Patrick Corrigan and Amy Watson. They explained in their article how people with mental illness struggle to live their everyday life; they said that people with the illness do not have much opportunity that defines a quality life. They also said explained how society, especially the media reacts with the stigma and not all people with the knowledge of stereotypes agree with it.

They said “Media analyses of film and print have identified three: people with mental illness are homicidal maniacs who need to be feared; they have childlike perceptions of the world that should be marveled; or they are responsible for their illness because they have weak character.”

Media is really manipulative and by showing the portrayal of a mentally disturbed person, gives us the knowledge that they should be feared, they should not interact with people or vice-versa, and most of they do not have the right to decide for themselves. If this continues, people with illness will find a hard time to ask for help.

On another article that I’ve read: “Mental Illness in Society” in merckmanuals.com written by Caroline Carney Doebbeling. She said that 50% of adults have experienced a mental disorder and despite of high numbers of people experiencing a mental disorder only about 20% of them received help. She also said how people with illness are often blamed for what they are experiencing and most of the time they are often misunderstood. One misapprehension is that “people with the illness are lazy and weak, and if they actually try, they could overcome it.”

She also said “Everyone requires a social network to satisfy the human need to be cared for, accepted, and emotionally supported, particularly in times of stress. Research has shown that strong social support may significantly improve recovery from both physical and mental illnesses.”

I think that the best way to challenge those stereotypes is to have firsthand contact with a mentally disturbed person. You know, like have a normal conversation with them; you’ll never know what you might learn from them. Just don’t be awkward around them, act the way you act with your friends.

Blogpost 4: Bro, do you even do drugs?

45 days 45 drugs 45 self-portraits were basically how Bryan Saunders did his masterpiece. Every day he would in take a drug and do a self-portrait of him to see how a certain drug works. Most of his paintings looked outrageous and some looked really good. But I can’t seem to understand his reason why he did those, is it for fame? Is it part of his art style? Or he really needed something to boost his creativity?

Again I wanted to learn more about this so I researched. And fortunately I found an article “Can Psychedelic Drugs Enhance Creativity?” in patch.com written by David Jay Brown. He explained about a popular drug that was used by many artists “psychedelic drugs”. Psychedelic drug is a psychoactive drug that alters the perception and cognition of person who have intake those.

According to Brown  “The relationship between cannabis and creativity was the subject of one of my , and many highly-acclaimed artists, scientists, writers, musicians, and creative people of all sorts claim to have received creative inspiration from cannabis and more potent psychedelics--like LSD, mescaline, and psilocybin--for decades.”

I think it is no wonder for us to know that artists use drugs, not to be stereotypical or anything, but, they are the ones who confess that they use drugs. It may be for inspiration or production or for self –meditation. But most of the time this people who uses drugs abuse it, yes by using those they risk the having of an addiction.  

For more information about how the psychedelic drug boost the creativity an article “Creativity and Psychedelics” in maps.org written by Rick J. Strassman explained that, if the consciousness if modified in the creative process the creativity will be alter. He also mentions that psychiatry, especially psychoanalysis, has an eye for creativity. And psychoanalysis studies mania and schizophrenia that somehow showed us a connection in creativity and mental illness.

He said that “Under the influence of these drugs, all forms of perception are altered, especially the visual and auditory. New ideas, thoughts, and memories emerge. Emotions are intense and shift rapidly. The body changes shape, weight, and appearance, as does its relationship to the mind. Our sense of self, its nature and quality, is highly altered”

In my opinion, because of the rising of “psychedelic drugs enhance creativity” a lot of artists and people who wanted to be an artist will try to use the drug, to experience the effect firsthand. It imposes an idea that artists do not need to worry about inspiration for their work because psychedelic drugs will always give them. 

Blogpost 3: Artist's Talent

If you’re a left brain dominant person it means you are intellectual, you have the tendency to analyze things around you. And if you are right brain dominant person it means you have the ability to turn everything into a masterpiece; your imagination gives you the ability to do so. Are you familiar with those statements? Yeah I had believe in that too until I was in high school. My teacher explains to us how we use both side of the brain, she also said different kind of people have different structure according to research. So does that mean that you cannot obtain certain ability? How about the artist’s talent? Can you be like them? Or is talent need to be inborn?

Of course I was curious about the brain of an artist works; how could they produce something so beautiful and meaning. So while researching, I stumbled across an article “Artists brains are 'structurally different' claims new study” in independent.co.uk written by James Vincent. In his article, he said that a small study published in Neuroimage did a brain scan to both art and non-art student. It showed that art student have more grey matter in the part of their brain that is related to visual imagery and fine motor control.

He also stated that “Although this is certainly a physical difference it does not mean that artists’ talents are innate. The balance between the influence of nature and nurture is never easy to divine, and the authors say that training and upbringing also plays a large role in ability.”

I have to agree with what he stated on his article. If we are trying to figure out the geniuses of the mankind, we need to see if they are somewhat different from us at birth. Of course they already have certain traits in them, but there is no evidence that their success is because of genetics. They obtain their skills from the environment they were in.

Because I was so into “innate talent is a myth” I tried to research more about it and I accidently saw an article about it: “On Innate Talent” in psychologytoday.com written by Scott Barry Kaufman. In his article he explained some of the views of psychologist on innate talents like John Watson for example. John Watson said that even though you gave him a dozen of random infants he can pick one and train him to be whatever profession he wanted to.

He also wrote that “ Every student has a range as to what they can achieve; the key is for educators to help students reach their upper limit, and make sure there aren't environmental factors that are hindering a student from doing so”

So it says that the innate talent is not somewhat a myth because innate talent is a key factor in learning. Like if a child wanted to learn to play the piano, it will be a lot easier for her to learn if she already has nature from nurture. But if we see a child exhibiting a skill in playing the piano it shows that nature comes first before nurture. Just like an artist, some already have the talent but it does not mean that you cannot learn it. You also could be a great artist someday.

Blogpost 2: Sylvia Plath Effect

Does this ever happen to you? You read a book and then every now and then you constantly pause your reading just to say “fuck” because the story is so intense, you cannot predict the happenings and the climax and conflict gives you headache. I, myself have always experience those, I’m a book worm and I have no shame in admitting it. I cannot stop myself from buying novels and if the story is good, I won’t allow myself to drop the book until I’ve finished it. Also with poetry, I always fell in love with poetry; the way the poets arrange those words in order to create a beautiful sentence that will capture your heart and soul. It’s because the writer has talent, God has given him hands of wonders. And sometimes I wonder how the heck these writers have come up with amazing stories and poetries.  

If you have to ask me which literary work has more emotions, I have to say that it is the poems. Because of the spontaneous outflow of powerful feelings: it takes its origins from emotion recollected in tranquility. But according to researches that female poets are more prone to mental illness than any other creative writers the phenomenon is called “The 'Sylvia Plath' effect” in which female poets are more likely to suffer a mental illness than other writers. And because of my curiosity about that research I have come across the article about that entitled “The 'Sylvia Plath' effect” in apa.org written by Deborah Smith Bailey. In the article she mention on how a lot of questions about the connection of mental illness and creativity arise. And it was also stated that according to Pennebaker that it may be possible that Sylvia Plath writing poetry is what keeping her alive in time of her depression. Giving us the conclusion that she uses her poetries as gate for her over flowing emotions.

She said that “Popular culture has long stereotyped poets as depressed and creative scientists as mad.” This phenomenon has started when Aristotle observed the philosophers, poets and artists and saw that they are more susceptible to “melancholia.”

And yes its true most of the artists we know suffered from mental illness, and there are researchers that can show evidences. But the studies have methodological problems, they are also bias and most of all the definition of creativity is still argued today, so some of the studies have not found a link between creativity and mental illness. Bailey also said that “Kaufman found that poets--and in particular female poets --were more likely than fiction writers, nonfiction writers and playwrights to have signs of mental illness, such as suicide attempts or psychiatric hospitalizations” Which leads him to unveil his thoughts about his book and research.

 In Kaufman’s blog he wrote his views about the “Sylvia Plath Effect” in which he was the one who coined the term. He said in his article entitled “Latest thoughts on the Sylvia Plath Effect” in jamesckaufman.com that how researchers studies creative people is through their individual personal characteristics using statistics to analyze which was a little risky and inaccurate for him. And he also said that his study was only focused on the female poets comparing to the other creative writers.

He said “I’ve explored the question of why female poets – I think that one possibility is that generally, writing is quite good for you, especially expressive/emotive writing. It could be that fiction writers, memoirists, playwrights, or other writers receive mental health “boosts.””

It was suggested that because women are more emotional than men, they are more prone to the illness.  But he also said that “The general question of creativity-mental illness is an interesting but dangerous one.” Most researches are based on the biographies of the people which are an inaccurate method of research. It cannot provide enough evidence for the link of creativity and mental illness.

The thought that female poets are more prone to have mental illness is rather insulting. Because it suggest that emotions are big part of the illness and female are most likely to be emotional. But it should not stop female poets from writing great poetry. Remember there are different results in research, there is no definite answer yet to whether creativity as well as writing contributes to our mental health.

Blogpost 1: Mad Artist

Insane. Crazy. Eccentric and Lunatic. These are the words people used to describe artists.

Artists appear to be mentally disturbed because both madness and creativity are rooted in the unconscious, Dr. Barten said. Creativity and madness, those two different things have the similarities that most of us would understand and maybe even have experienced it ourselves. Every artist and painter has the same trait of lick of madness to their works no matter how sane they appear to be. Every project or work goes through a great deal of emotions in order to create a masterpiece. The roller coaster ride of emotions is what drives an artist to do what they are good at, producing artworks. Usually, strong and aggressive emotions are seen on the creations, maybe with a tinge of madness, is your clue to actually seeing that someone is having a trip down insanity lane.

So while researching about artists with mental illness, I’ve come across an article entitled “The Real Link between Creativity and Mental Illness” in blogs.scientificamerican.com written by one of the known psychologist Scott Barry Kaufman. He stated that there are many eminent artists who had suffer a terrible childhood and have been emotionally unstable. Though, it does not necessarily mean that mental illness contributes to the eminence. He also said that according to Andreas Fink and colleagues that when they directly compare the brain of a creative person with no mental illness and the brain of a schizotypy, it shows high similarity in the brain pattern during the creative thinking.

According to him“The romantic notion that mental illness and creativity are linked is so prominent in the public consciousness that it is rarely challenged. Researchers agree that mental illness is neither necessary nor sufficient for creativity.  But is there still a connection between the two?”

Most individual thought that having this so called mental illness will give those advantages such as increased imagination, more emotional, and overpowering energy. The mythology of madness as fuel for creativity or all artists are crazy affects how we view the artists. And one of the dangers of this myth is that we see ourselves as not crazy enough to be creative or we tend to think that paranoia and schizophrenia should be endured in order for us to produce art. In the essay, Kaufman mentioned a few studies investigating challenged what he called the “romantic notion that mental illness and creativity are linked.” We romanticized the illness to much that we forgot how these artists are also people who suffer , and we often label them as “mad genius” ”mad artist” or “tortured artist. “As time goes by it will be a lot harder for them to seek help.

Speaking of mad artist, in another article I’ve read “You don’t have to be Mad” in theguardian.com which was written by Alexander Linklater. The term “Mad Artist” starts from the two conflicts in the 19^th century. First they romanticized the illness as an inspiration for the artist and then the second is the less enthusiasm to classify it as a medical condition.  The Whitechapel gallery in London opens an exhibit “Inner Worlds Outside” where criminals, people with autism, and other genuine outsiders - making no distinction between the two kinds of artist. And it was shown that there is no distinct connection between mental illness and creativity.

He said that “Primitivism, naive art, dadaism and surrealism all invoked a realm of fantastic or unconscious disorder, but it was most particularly in expressionism that the notion of the mad artist found its modern incarnation. The pioneers of expressionism were by no means all insane”

I quite agree with what he said, those artists in a specific had a weird and unusual way of expressing their art. Like surrealism that Salvador Dali was famous for; he uses automatism as a technique in creating his work. Automatism is a process where you let your subconscious mind express through allowing the hand move randomly on the paper. I think that most people today judge the artists if his insane or not through his work of art; like if the piece is dark and gruesome people will already conclude that the said artist is disturbed. 

"It is important that we do not romanticize people with mental health problems, who are too often portrayed as struggling creative geniuses” said Beth Murphy, Head of Information at Mind. A creative person that has a long history of mental illness in the family doesn’t mean he is crazy too or it doesn’t necessarily prone to the illness. We don’t need to be crazy to be creative; we don’t need to torture our mind to call our masterpiece an art. We just need to find the right inspiration and mental illness is not one of them.