Ārt and "Norm"

   Whether spontaneous creative activity of the insane is art, can creativity and madness exist together - these questions are asked both by those who meet this phenomenon for the first time and by specialists. Traditional approaches and cultural conservatism are the basis for such doubts. Certainly, one can follow the point of view expressed by the art historian G. Schmidt accepting as "art" is only something created within the limits of a social cultural context; or the opinion of L. Binswanger who refused to call the "mad" pictures art because they were not connected to art models and traditions.

   Let's make a small step aside from authoritative opinions and follow up what official culture suggestes to be "real art". "Art is creative activity on the whole: literature, painting, sculpture, architecture, etc.... and other kinds of human activity united as artistic-visual forms that reflect the reality..." Let's take only two main points: "on the whole" and "reality reflection" to illustrate that the above mentioned approaches are too narrow. As far as "the reality reflection" is concerned it is necessary to define this reality: whether it is an objective total reality or deeply subjective individual one reflected by the author of intuitive creations? This principal division is to be done by a Cultural Man while referring to the unusual system of self-expression (better to say to the "systems multiplicity").

   Moreover, let's compare the spiritual life of a person (according to V. Kandinski) to the triangle, the sharpest and the smallest angle of which is pointed to the top. "There is only one person on the top. His joyful vision is similar to the deep internal sorrow. And those who are closer to him do not understand his feelings. They call him a trickster or a candidate for an asylum... Lonesome eager and able to see is laughed at or consider to be crazy..." If these people are fundamental for spiritual in art the spontaneous creativity of the insane are highly spiritual because a crazy one is on the top of the triangle, rejected by most of the people and immersed deeply in himself. Then: "The inhabitants of the bigger section of the triangle have never solved the questions themselves..." however, the crazy one in the spiritual and creative life can only count on himself: he is the one who asks and at the same time he answers, free from the pressure of traditions and lonely in his choice. Thus, even formally comparing we can see that in the context of culturally orientated concept a crazy author can be the creator of true works of art... But... Is any mad person able to that? Can that approach lead to the false opinion that all art production made by the crazy people is valuable? Unfortunately, that can happen. That's why we have to define which works are to be given some priority. "The picture is painted well if it lives with the full internal life. The drawing is good if nothing can be changed without destruction of that internal life... The artist is and even must work with the forms in the way he needs for his goals". Anyone who is "beyond mental health" is free to choose such forms, moreover he can invent the new, known only to him, ones. Only "spiritual vibrations" of the audience will tell him whether the art is true or not.