Madness and Art Debate

Just a couple of things I was thinking about during the debate and afterwards (on the pro side).

Considering the view of thinkers such as Sasz, Laing etc etc that perceived 'madness' as an attempt to express 'disapproved' thought led me to wonder if in fact part of the wonder of art is the ability and opportunity it affords the artist to express and explore ideas that might not otherwise be acceptable or understood by society. The use of art as a medium through which to express these ideas does not by any means indicate that an artist is mad, merely that he or she chooses this medium through which to express ideas he or she may otherwise struggle to. I would suggest that in some cases art becomes an acceptable arena for what could otherwise be unacceptable, or perhaps inexpressible. In this case 'madness' or the accusation of madness appears to me the result of incomprehension or 'blinkeredness' (really really not a word, but never mind....) on the part of the audience.

Considering also the question of inaccessibility to 'normal' society: I believe that really, pretty much all art is going to come from a place essentially inaccessible to any one part of society; one person's imagination is not the same as another's and in this sense all art comes from a different place, a different mindset than the one with which an audience will then view the piece. It is surely almost impossible for an audience to fully understand an artist's motives- the fact that this is the case in no way indicates either that the work is the result of madness or is pointless and useless within the medium. Personally I believe that one of the greatest things about art remains the fact that, whatever an artist's motivation and/or message, it is possible to interpret the same work in countless different ways.