Max Guida's Portfolio
About
Overall:
I had fun this semester. Throughout our time together in English 104, I was able to ground myself in the college work environment without ever doing too much work. I actually would've been able to skip this class, as my AP credits made it unnecessary, but I must say that I'm glad I didn't. I think I just remember seeing 6 credits for one class and checking it as one I should take. The fun atmosphere, short duration, and minimal stress of this class made it a joy every day. The open-ended major assignments also felt very freeing. While my psychological analysis of Dostoevsky may have been over-analytical, underdeveloped and not a very representative personal reflection, I must say that I truly enjoyed it, and I am glad that I had the freedom to write on something so personalized. I do think that I may have been at fault in my own work ethic, as I remember numerous times when I sent in assignments the night before my conference, rather than the the previous weekend when they were due. This lesson I will take forward with me to excel in my upcoming classes, I can only hope my future professors will be as entertaining and understanding as Kevin Francis Kelleher. So without further ado, these three upcoming assignments will be first, my aforementioned Dostoevsky analysis: an analysis of his growing philosophical viewpoints through the novels Notes from Underground, Crime and Punishment, and The Brothers Karamazov. Next is the annotated bibliography for my research paper: The Gift of Fire. I will say that I should've said more about my sources, but I think I brought them together rather well in the paper. Finally there will be The Gift of Fire: A breakdown of the correlation between mental illness and artistic ability. In that paper I discuss which elements of the supposed correlation are conflation and which are legitimate, to what degree, and how we should act differently because of that. I hope you enjoy.
Dostoevsky Analysis
‘The human experience’ is one of those things you hear in only vague contexts, never really said with much meaning or if so, only superficially. It’s hard to understand exactly how other people feel, even harder to definitively label and describe it. But I know of one man who showed me exactly what it means to be human, showed me exactly what he was struggling with and what truly captivates the human mind. Fyodor Dostoevsky didn’t write for anyone but himself. His stories are deeply personal, yet so deeply psychological that they can teach almost anyone on earth a lesson in morals (not to mention the dangers of poor mental health). Dostoevsky showed his characters in a flawed and bare light which most don’t reveal even today. He forces his readers to confront their darkest and most vulnerable sides, then he builds these into their best qualities.
Dostoevsky didn’t lead an easy life. As a child he was exposed to the sick and dying lower-class of St. Petersburg through his mother’s work as a nurse. He had bouts of extreme superiority and inferiority (enough to start a mental health discussion, but that is not my purpose here), a gambling addiction, and eventual near execution, imprisonment, and solitary confinement so extreme, that his guards wore bags on their shoes so he couldn’t hear their footsteps. Later in life he wrote works in which he dealt with these experiences, along with his shifting religious faith, all the while going through many troubles with women and poverty.
The most telling and humanizing aspect of Dostoevsky for me, comes when his fiction is compared to his realities. In “Notes From Underground”, Dostoevsky writes for nearly half of the book in a rant reminiscent of a drunken Nietzsche transcript. He talks about subjects which had never before been discussed: his internal pain from being too aware of his surroundings, his commitment and even yearning for this pain, his rejection of society and intentional deviation from it, and even his knowledge of these shortcomings of his own ideals. He puts forth the proposition that human beings are almost defective by nature (at least him), and that happiness always seems unattainable or undercut, as to cause him to relish in his misery.
Now take into consideration that the underground man is isolated apart from society because he chose to get away, and Dostoevsky was isolated as a form of torture. Had his mental state decayed in such a way as a coping mechanism for his reality? But he clearly shows the errors in his ways and reasons to change his character in “Notes From Underground”. Instead, Dostoevsky’s isolation seemed to spark in him a realization of the true nature of human beings, that the darkness in the world builds on itself and manifests in those around it, and an awareness of this cannot help but give one an almost endlessly pessimistic view, so as they may decide to lock themselves away from society and live under the ground.
“Crime and Punishment” acts in a similar manner, but pushes beyond the simplicity of “Notes From the Underground”. While Rodion Romanych Raskolnikov begins the novel in a state of extreme isolation and hatred of society, pretty familiar at this point. However, he concludes through this that he has the has the innate right to kill one person whom he has all necessary motivation to kill. However, after carrying this out, and another extraneous murder, he finds himself tortured by his action, literally falling ill directly afterwards, and reaping none of the rewards he planned. After spending time with various members of the St. Petersburg lower-class, he is eventually, and painfully, convinced to turn himself in and repent for his sin. In his repentance, he finds himself able to love and give away his false superiority, and through this finds more joy and will in life that ever before.
This series of moral queries and revaluations concludes with what is often seem as his seminal work, “The Brothers Karamazov”. In complete honesty, I’ve yet to read this novel, and want to go into it without much pretext, so I’ll be describing what I know of it superficially and maybe even a bit incorrectly. In this work Dostoevsky struggles with his belief in God, and struggles so well as to provide evidences and ideas on both sides which are still referred to in modern debates on God. He is said to have grown in his belief by the end of his life, so he seems to have reconciled his previous works view on religion the same way that “Crime and Punishment” reconciled his previous work’s views on pessimism.
It is very rare to see the healing process of torment so clearly and intricately described and pondered in any medium. The beginning and end of Dostoevsky’s fiction bring the reader from a place of complete despair and solace to one of even ecstatic hope (ecstatic might be a little extreme). The psychological depth of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s fiction is something unparalleled in almost all respects. One might say it could be due to the fact that most writers haven’t been through the enormously ridiculous and terrible tragedy that plagued him at nearly every turn, and the pain he experienced is clearly evident in his work. But there’s something more. Some understanding of the basis of the human condition that doesn’t seem to be acknowledged in much other popular literature. This, combined with the sprawling and decrepit settings in which his novels take place, the complexity of all his characters, and the deeply personal perspective, creates some of the books which have touched me more deeply than anything else I’ve read. And since we can see how a brilliant man such as he dealt with his troubles in his writing, we may not only learn from his characters, but learn for him how we may make the best of our lives in the face of tragedy.
Work Cited:
Dostoevsky, Fyodor, and Constance Garnett. The Brothers Karamazov. Ekz.bibliotheksservice GmbH, 2014.
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment. Modern Library, 1950
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, and Jane Kentish. Notes from Underground. Oxford University Press, 2008.
Yeahhh... I'm not great with technology, so I'm just going to insert my papers into the pre-made text boxes. Sorry. Here's an inspirational quote as retribution for my incompetence.
"I am strongly in favor of the use of poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes."
Winston Churchill
Mental Illness and Art Annotated Bibliography
Many of the greatest artists in the world have been known to struggle with mental illnesses, a disproportionate number to other professions, or so we are often led to believe. Lord Byron once said that “We of the craft are all crazy,”. While it has been argued that the neurological tendencies of mentally ill minds hinder the creative process, it has also been argued that the ability to think in ways outside of normal thought is one of the greatest attributes in a successful artist. I plan to research this and discover how true this is, how necessary it is, and to what degree it has affected the course of art in the world.
“Creativity and Mental Illness.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/creative-explorations/201503/creativity-and-mental-illness.
This article, written by Harvard Psychiatry professor Albert Rothenburg, M.D., argues against the connection between mental illness and art. It addresses the habits of mentally ill minds and explains reasons for why they sometimes are and are not compatible with creative forms. The article also compares lists of mentally ill and stable writers to determine to what degree any illness is necessary for art, and which kinds of art it tends to accel in. It approaches art from a neurological perspective and used examples of the different stages of artists and their work to provide evidence. I will use this to counterpoint the main argument brought forth in Touched with Fire.
Harpin, Anna. Madness, Art, and Society: beyond Illness. Routledge, 2018.
Anna Harpin completed her Ph. D. in Theater at the University of Cambridge. She explored the history of post-war theater in Ireland, Britain and, North America. This research studied the art made in reference to post-traumatic stress disorder, and she has expanded this to the many other variations of mental illness in this book. She is also a writer and director in her theatre company Idiot Child. This work explores art as a form of therapy to the mentally instead of a possible burden as Jamison describes. She uses examples of patients who indulge in art solely to better their personal lives and how effective this is. I will use this as a counterpoint to the largely positive and destructive nature of mentally ill artists depicted in Touched with Fire.
Jamison, Kay R. Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament. Simon & Schuster, 1996.
Kay Redfield Jamison has a Ph. D. in Clinical Psychology from UCLA, and has struggled with bipolar disorder since her childhood, enduring some of the conditions related to artists she explores in this book. She has won the Macarthur Fellowship, been named a “Hero of Medicine” by Time magazine, and many more from various institutions which I don’t feel like going through -to summarize she’s very accomplished. Touched with Fire is an inquiry and analysis of the relation of mental disorders and art. She explores the lives of artists such as William Blake, Lord Byron, Hugo Wolf, Virginia Woolf, and many others. She often directly references their work and draws comparisons to their mental conditions through it, as well as showing how they can perpetuate each other. Her experience and therefore understanding of this topic make her work more involved and accurate than many others on the same topic. I intend to use this as my main source of evidence for this paper. I will draw examples of artists and their relations to their illness and art though this book, and research trend of which illnesses are associated with which mediums of artistic expression.
Richmond, Kia Jane. Mental Illness in Young Adult Literature: Exploring Real Struggles through Fictional Characters. Libraries Unlimited, an Imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC, 2019.
Kia Jane Richmond has a Ph. D. in English studies, and a B.A. in psychology. Her work focuses on the depictions of the mentally ill in fiction, discussing how different stereotypes are opposed or reinforced, as well as the prevalence of mental illness being depicted in literature. She also discusses how treatment of the mentally ill can help them, and what it may do the them artistically. I plan on using this source to investigate the role mental illness has in modern literature, how it is depicted, and how influential it is upon the whole of modern literature.
The role of insanity seems to be conflated with and stereotypical of the creative process, however some of the evidence leads one to believe this may not be the case. However one must then ask if insanity does not lend itself to art, but rather art subsequently lends itself to insanity based on this possible conflation. For instance, the paintings of Louis Wain clearly indicate a schizophrenic mind, but it does not seem to make his art objectively better to the collective public, as it is based almost solely on hallucinations. Does the afflicted mind make one predisposed to the creative mindset? John Nash Jr.’s achievements seem to contradict this. How much of an advantage, if any, can mental illness be? I plan to discover the answers to these questions in my research paper.
I would probably consider this my best work of the semester for English 104. It may be slightly disorganized and aired on the side of style over substance once or twice, but I greatly enjoyed writing it.
The Gift of Fire
We of the craft are all crazy. Some are affected by gaiety, others by melancholy, but all are more or less touched.”
-Lord Byron
The stereotype of the tortured artist has been in our cultural consciousness for a long time now. While many artists would likely be offended by this apparent conflation, there does appear to be evidence supporting truth behind the predilection of the mentally to the artistic form. In this paper I intend to separate the fact from fiction on this issue and reveal what mental illness really means in the world of art, and how it may help or hinder an artist’s career.
Above is a quote by the renowned poet Lord Byron. While psychoanalysis of the artistic temperament in an offhand comment from a poet in the 17th century may be more than a little unreliable, this link between manic depressive disorders and the artistic temperament seems to be upheld by numerous studies and observations to this day. In Kay Redfield Jamison’s study of Mood Disorders and Suicide in British and Irish Poets Born 1705-1805, only 9 of the 36 poets studied were devoid of any diagnosable mood disorder. Some of this may be attributable to the harsh and trauma inducing environment of Britain and Ireland at the time, but regardless, that proportion of artists being afflicted by mood disorders makes the case for conflation of mental illness and artistry seemed decidedly weaker. When compared with the list of more notable figures of literature, the correlation seems nearly undeniable. Ernest Hemmingway, Virginia Woolf, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Emily Dickenson, Mark Twain and many others have all suffered from manic illnesses. Fitzgerald once remarked that he took inspiration from his episodes, making hundreds of lists which later enabled him to better understand his mentality. While this, combined with the recurrence of disorders among artists, seems to lead to a near direct equation, Harvard psychiatry professor Albert Rothenburg argues that these disorders objectively hinder the artistic process.
Because of the nature of any manic-depressive disorder to leave the individual it manifests within in a state of emotional and psychological flux, the care and precision required to create great works of art are hindered. The two mind-states are easily conflated, as abstract and deviant thought patterns are seemingly inherent in both creative and mentally ill individuals. However, the mentally ill fall into these states involuntarily. So while an artist may become elated directly from the creation of valuable work, someone with bipolar disorder will experience this same level of elation arbitrarily, and therefore lacks the structure necessary to formulate a truly cohesive and great work of art. Jackson Pollock, known as the father of abstract impressionism, was given a clinical diagnosis of both bipolar disorder and alcohol dependence. Before his recovery, his work was said to be derivative and in no way denoted anything about his own mental breakdown, rather drawing from other surrealists and abstractionists. It was only after he went into remission from his disorder and quit drinking that his work garnished the attention which gave him his modern fame. His style, when focused and reflective, was known for simultaneously obscuring and expressing it’s subject.
Combined with the majority of artists and writers renowned for their greatness who don’t suffer from any mental illness, the relation between these two conditions may be a simple stereotype after all.
However, the common misconception of these illnesses is their constancy. Many mentally ill individuals have been institutionalized because of this very reason. Nearly every documented mental illness is far from constant, but rather is episodic, creation periods of illusion and distorted perceptions and feelings in the individual. It is this characteristic which allows writers with these attributes to remain functional. By viewing his notes in a sound mindset, F. Scott Fitzgerald was able to create great works of literature at a productive pace (granted his repertoire may be limited, but it certainly compensates in sheer excellence). This same practice has been utilized by Ernest Hemmingway and Emily Dickenson and Kurt Vonnegut. In fact, this may be the missing link between the conflation and relation. Take Kurt Vonnegut as an example. While mental illness did plague members of his family, he remained unaffected. Instead, it was his traumatic experience in the firebombing of Dresden which prompted the writing of his seminal work, Slaughter-House Five. This event changed his perception of the world around him, a change he details in the book, coincidentally detailed through the medium of mental illness. He attributed the success of his book directly to the incident, rather than to himself, even going so far as to darkly remark:
“The Dresden atrocity, tremendously expensive and meticulously planned, was so meaningless, finally, that only one person on the entire planet got any benefit from it. I am that person. I wrote this book, which earned a lot of money for me and made my reputation, such as it is. One way or another, I got two or three dollars for every person killed. Some business I’m in.”
Instead of having a career made by sheer talent and skill, Vonnegut saw himself as a direct benefactor to his situation, benefited because of his ability to overcome and analyze it. This seems to suggest that rather than a definitively ill mind, simply the ability to see things differently is what separates art from the masses. Throughout history, this claim seems to be supported by countless examples. For instance, the loss of Francisco De Goya’s hearing and his subsequent dark tones in painting, or the poor eyesight and LSD use of Aldous Huxley which prompted his style of objective cynicism, or the Scientific knowledge of Arthur C. Clarke which set his work apart from other science fiction, or the multilingual and multicultural knowledge of Vladimir Nabokov showing as a worldly scholar. Nabokov even stated that he did not see himself as a gifted writer, but instead as a “perfectly average trilingual child,”. This theory of seeing the world through different eyes seems quite obvious when considered, but this also begs the question whether or not anyone is born innately gifted. While I may not be able to answer that question, I can instead say that the gift of mental illness in art is not a predilection to the form, but rather an innate nature which formatively changes the way one perceives the world, and therefore gives one an inclination greater than most to express this difference. So while Vonnegut needed to witness the destruction of a city to create his greatest work, Fitzgerald needed only observe his surroundings.
Unfortunately, this relation can still prompt stigma against the mentally ill, possibly due to the work of certain individuals which is dedicated solely to mental illness. Louis Wain was a painter. He painted cats. Then he fell into a prolonged schizophrenic state. Then he painted cats differently.
His work was clearly and dramatically altered by his illness. One would be unlikely to find great meaning behind his work, instead one only finds a portrait of an ill mind. This was much of the reason Louis Wain was institutionalized. He could not be seen as anything but ill. Now, while clinical treatment of manic disorders can often be necessary and beneficial when an artist falls into states such as this, it is much more prevalent for these states to cause a misdiagnosis of the subject’s mental state, as it is hard to view it as anything other than pure insanity. This has been recorded as causing two converse and extreme results. First, in the case of Louis Wain, one is subjected to intense and often unnecessary psychiatric treatment (often indistinguishable from punishment). Second, the symptoms are treated as a sign of genius, and therefore overlooked and even cherished, such as in the case of Robert Lowell. Ian Hamilton stated his experience in witnessing the reactions to Lowell’s mania:
“Some members of the faculty found him excitable and talkative during this period, but since the talk was always brilliant and very often flattering to them, they could see no reason to think of Lowell as ‘ill,’ indeed, he was behaving just as some of them hoped a famous poet would behave. They undertook to protect this unique flame against any dampening intrusions from New York. Thus, when Hardwick [Lowell’s wife] became convinced that Lowell was indeed sick -over a period of two weeks his telephone calls to New York became more confused, lengthy and abusive -she ran up against a wall of kindly meant hostility from Lowell’s campus allies. Her version of Lowell was not theirs, even when they were discussing the same symptoms; what to her was ‘mad’ was to them another mark of Lowell’s genius.”
Robert Lowell had bipolar disorder -a condition which can make one both unfathomably elated, and depressed. In this case the relation between mental illness and art actively inhibited both the realization and treatment of the disorder, and should be taken as emblematic of the darker possibilities that our social stigmas can create. But one cannot say that art should be avoided for this reason, and certainly the mentally ill are entitled to be free to express themselves through art as a form of therapy and potential profit.
Because of the dangers associated with viewing the mentality of artists both too harshly and too leniently, our job as a society and as fellow human being wishing for the best for each other should be knowledge and de-stigmatization of these issues so that we can know when to leave someone alone, when to help them, and how to help them. By viewing artists as a separate breed, we lose the ability to enjoy art in relation to ourselves, understand more, and help each other. The medium of art can be the greatest tool for understanding each other, but it is often viewed as an obstacle in this regard. I implore you, next time you encounter what appears to be a nonsensical painting or poem or other work of artistic expression, to put yourself in the shoes of the creator, try to understand their mind, and you may see something so beautiful that it could, even if only in some fleeting, miniscule way, change your perception of reality.
Works Cited:
“Creativity and Mental Illness.” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers,
Harpin, Anna. Madness, Art, and Society: beyond Illness. Routledge, 2018
Jamison, Kay R. Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament. Simon & Schuster, 1996.
Richmond, Kia Jane. Mental Illness in Young Adult Literature: Exploring Real Struggles through Fictional Characters. Libraries Unlimited, an Imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC, 2019.
Reflection Essay
English 104 may have actually been my favorite class this semester. For 50 minutes on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, I had a break from stress, unintelligible material, and an overload of assignments. Instead I had 50 blissful minutes of whimsical yet somehow structured nonsense. I don’t know how much I can say to reflect anymore than I already did. I can honestly say that this class helped me remember many of the fundamentals of grammar which I may have forgotten. Our focus on academic research has also greatly helped me appreciate a larger variety of literature outside of what I previously did. While the Blount readings may have been long, that kind of trial by fire has helped me so immensely as a writer already, so much so that it gives me hope for the future. My major causes me to feel unsure of myself very frequently. I actually want to become a writer. It seems so ludicrous. One of the things that gets me about it is to say I want to be a writer means that I must think I have something to say that no one else can. I don’t know if that’s true, it seems unlikely. But throughout this semester, in my personal writing, I have found such a joy in the construction of narrative and meaningful fiction that I don’t care for the question. While these few essays may show something about me, I guarantee it’s nothing close to the full picture. What I found to take up more of my time than anything is my private creative work. I’ve been writing songs, a play, short stories, novels, and I’ve enjoyed all of it so much. I realize through the enhancement I’ve received through the Blount program that I would just be so miserable doing anything other than writing, that it wouldn’t be worth whatever monetary difference may come with a business degree or as a law student. I suppose that sounds a bit arrogant, but I stick by it. Everything that ever happens to us changes our lives. Our lives are so determined that it’s nearly impossible to truly discover who we really are. Perhaps some serendipitous coincidences made me come to this place and go down this road, but whether or not they were free choices, I could never say that I’m not happy with them. Blount changed my life more effectively than most things. I’m very grateful to the Blount program for fostering the kind of academic environment they do. I don’t feel any need to explain the previous work on this page; it is what it is. I don’t care whether or not I get points off for it, this is my ending point. Thanks for the lessons.
Please Don't Get in Touch
