Speaking with the Tongues of Angels: Fyodor Dostoevsky, 1821-1881

Before Starbucks took over the world, I spent my youth in the kind of coffee shops that played Ella Fitzgerald, talking over the finer points of existential angst with my cohorts. Dostoevsky’s work, filled with all the big questions of God and madness and free will and exile, was pressing stuff. So pressing, indeed, that we stayed up half the night at Chez Cappuccino, mulling over Notes from the Underground. You couldn’t be literary; you couldn’t be a writer, if you didn’t dissect every minutiae of meaning (or meaninglessness, as it were) from the Russian writers. I recall that one of my colleagues, an African, shook his head wistfully over Crime and Punishment. “Dostoevsky ruins it for all the other novelists,” he said. “How can you read anyone else’s work after these masterpieces?”

Well, maybe Tolstoy would make the cut- the two Russian writers are widely considered the best novelists of all time. Intellectuals have been gathering at cafes the world over to discuss Dostoevsky’s notions of suffering or suicide or freedom of expression for a hundred years. “The novels of Dostoevsky are seething whirlpools, gyrating sandstorms, waterspouts which hiss and boil and suck us in. They are composed purely and wholly of the stuff of the soul. Against our wills we are drawn in, whirled round, blinded, suffocated, and at the same time filled with a giddy rapture,” Virginia Woolf wrote. James Joyce said the writer had “created modern prose, and intensified it to its present-day pitch. It was his explosive power which shattered the Victorian novel with its simpering maidens…”

Indeed, Fyodor Dostoevsky’s dark whirlpool changed the face of literature irrevocably. His themes of human suffering, madness, sin, exile, guilt, redemption, evil, God, corruption, power, poverty, and the limits of human nature resonated deeply in circles far and wide, and every generation to follow. Inside the volatile thunderstorm of man’s search for meaning was truly “something for everyone.” From pop reading groups to the highest academia, Fyodor’s novels are on the ‘best of all time’ lists- at least one of The Idiot, Crime and Punishment, and The Brothers Karamazov- and usually all three. Every oeuvre painstakingly pries apart the soul and mind of humanity, swimming into the furthest depths of human behaviour. The writer’s explorations and explanations analyze human psychology brilliantly from every angle. Nietzsche would later call him “the only psychologist from whom I have anything to learn.”

But Fyodor didn’t become the bulwark of world literature by dropping a few well-mapped characters into winning plot formulas. He earned his bragging rights the hard way- through Russian political repression and oppression, through imprisonment and torture for defending freedom of expression, through a volatile relationship with his father who was murdered, and through madness, which he cherished above all else.

It was 1821 when Fyodor was born in Moscow. His father was a famously temperamental alcoholic, a retired military surgeon. Work doing gruesome amputations was not exactly ideal for a man prone to depressions and rage, and most biographers note that Mikhail was also exceedingly religious- likely to the point of delusion, as he was certain he was a special chosen one of God, and that his tribulations had special significance, like those of Job. Though Dad was a harsh master and jealous husband, his relationship with his children was not loveless. And Fyodor’s Mom was very nurturing and quite the opposite of her spouse- she was cheerful and loving. She taught Fyodor how to read early on, sharing stories from the Bible with her sons.

Fyodor’s environment was influential, of course, to the work he would do later on, contrasting human temperaments and beliefs. He was drawn to people’s stories early on, devouring the strange and beautiful and gory Biblical narratives. Contemporary struggles were even more fascinating- the boy prowled outside and spent hours listening to the stories of the poor and sick. There was plenty of fodder in his neighbourhood, among the worst in Moscow, located near a criminal cemetery, a lunatic asylum, an orphanage and so on. The boy was forbidden these travels, but more often than not failed to heed the rules. His curiousity got the best of him, and he craved sunlight instead of being indoors at all times.

In any event, both senior and junior Dostoevsky may have had more in common with the poor and crazy than Senior cared to admit. Exactly the nature of Dad’s headaches, rages, addiction and depression are unknown, but Junior had epilepsy and was prone to seizures and religious visions from his youth.

Though the hospital neighbourhood was squalid, the family was not poor. Far from it. Indeed, Fyodor was around ten years old when his father bought a hamlet and a village. This was the era of Russian serfdom, when rich landowners owned the peasants who lived there. Mikhail was a brutal landowner, but Fyodor did not take after him. Instead, as in the city, he listened eagerly to the stories of the lives at the lower rung of society’s echelon, and concluded that the poor were the truly nobility.

Country life was a short stint, however, as Maria died of consumption when Fyodor was fifteen, leaving dad to fend for a handful of young children and his broken heart. He sent Fyodor and his favourite brother, Mikhail, to boarding school, and took out his grief on his peasants, beating them whenever he wished.

And so it was that the motherless became fatherless a few years later- Dad was found dead on the path between his two villages. His horse and driver were reportedly missing, as were several of his serfs. The seemingly obvious explanation that he met his fate at the hands of his furious underlings has never been proven, though it is widely believed. It may have been a stroke. Some reports suggest suffocation by the carriage cushion, and still others suggest a bizarre murder method: drowning by enforced vodka administration. The latter derives, perhaps, from our insistence at reading Dostoyevsky’s work literally, for it appears in Notes from the Underground. Regardless, murder is very likely, for motivations abound, including reports that Dad was diddling the prettiest young peasants, sadly common among those with power then and now.

In any event, Fyodor was an orphan at sixteen. His troubles had just begun.

He completed studies at an academy of military engineering, but was far more interested in reading and writing. He was a lieutenant but escaped his work by reading obsessively, and obsessing about death. Both would be lifelong fixations. It’s not hard to imagine Fyodor, hunched over Pushkin in the late light of afternoon. He left the army in 1844 to write fiction and hang around literary and intellectual circles, including the St. Petersburg Petrashevsky Circle. Mikhail Petrashevsky was a follower of utopian socialism and organized a discussion group of writers and poets and other free thinkers, and they talked about books and politics. Most were opponents of the tsarist autocracy.

Fyodor was 24 when his first novel, Poor Folk, was published. Somewhat unexpectedly, he was hailed as the “new Gogol”- Gogol being a writer who satirized the corrupt Russian bureaucracy. And so the writer became a minor celebrity and he began to bravely publish political essays, even though he knew it was dangerous and illegal. He also decided to establish an underground press. He spoke out loud against censorship. Perhaps he was certain he could effect change, or perhaps he believed he should suffer for his art. And suffer he did. In 1849, Fyodor was arrested, along with other members of the circle, and taken to a maximum-security prison reserved for the most dangerous criminals. He was charged with owning an illegal printing press, and plotting to murder the tsar, among other things. The murder plot was outrageous- Dostoevsky was a revolutionary of ideas only. But his pleas fell on deaf ears. The writer was sentenced to death.

It was October 1849 when Dostoevsky and his partners in crime were marched toward the gallows, where they would stand in shooting range of soldiers. An order was given to lower the hoods over their faces. After an excruciating silence, the soldiers were commanded to shoot.

By now we all know that nothing happened- this mock execution is one of the most famous in history. A staged execution is among the most effective methods of psychological torture. While torture in general is, well, torture, this particular form usually makes you a basket case for life. Indeed, at least one and reportedly two of Fyodor’s friends went stark raving mad. Fyodor felt he’d been given another chance at life, and praised God for it. The torment led to later religious experiences while serving the next eight years of his sentence. Half of the sentence was spent doing hard labour in exile in Siberia, and the other half in the army.

Of his experiences in prison, Fyodor wrote, “I consider those four years as a time during which I was buried alive and shut up in a coffin. Just how horrible that time was I have not the strength to tell you…it was an indescribable, unending agony, because each hour, each minute weighed upon my soul like a stone.”

Yet Dostoevsky had never before felt so alive. He wrote in a letter to his brother, “When I look back on my past and think how much time I wasted on nothing, how much time has been lost in futilities, errors, laziness, incapacity to live; how little I appreciated it, how many times I sinned against my heart and soul – then my heart bleeds. Life is a gift, life is happiness, every minute can be an eternity of happiness.”

In those moments before he was to be shot to death, Fyodor had a revelation that “unconditional love” was the only salvation for humanity, something God had for the world, manifest in the gift of Jesus Christ. The writer committed to spending his life sharing this kind of love. These thoughts brought him tremendous strength through the continual hardships of his life, yet in eventuality, he despaired at the fruitlessness of convincing others of life’s joy.

We’ve all had the writing teacher who tells us, “Write about what you know.” And Dostoevsky did- so much so that we too often surmise it happened exactly as it had in his novels. Nonetheless, the events and emotions the writer described, sometimes decades later, often came from his personal suffering and redemption stories. Following his release from prison, he wrote The Insulted and the Humiliated, followed by House of the Dead and Notes from the Underground. House of the Dead showcased tales of murder and suffering among hardened criminals in a labour camp, for example. It was nearly a decade after Fyodor’s release that his masterpiece, Crime and Punishment, was manifest, in 1866.

Fyodor had married- during his army sentence, he courted a married woman who was miserable with her abusive husband. She didn’t marry him until her husband passed away. Their happiness was brief- Maria took ill and died a few short years later, in 1864. The profound emptiness and despair Fyodor felt was multiplied when his life’s anchor, brother Mikhail, died shortly after.

Fyodor descended into a deep pit of depression and crippling debts. In honour, he committed to caring for his brother’s widow and children, yet he didn’t have two dimes to rub together. This deadly combination of debt and despair led him to become a hopeless gambling addict. Anything he earned, he’d throw on the tables, hoping his luck would change. It did not. When he was penniless and in danger to his debtors, his publisher came to his aid and promised to give him a formidable advance if he could produce a brilliant novel in a month. And so, we have The Gambler.

Crime and Punishment was also to be generated quickly to meet insurmountable debts. It began as a short story, and then took on a life of its own. Though Fyodor had to deliver by January, he wrote to a friend confessing he’d burned the novel the previous November. “I didn’t like it myself. A new form, a new plan excited me, and I started all over again.” Fyodor’s unyielding perfectionism paid off, and Crime and Punishment turned out to be one of the greatest books ever written.

But Fyodor’s punishments were not over yet. In his mid-forties, he fell in love with a 21-year-old stenographer, and they married. With Anna, he had four children. The first died a few months after birth, and the fourth, his favourite, was three when he died during an epileptic seizure. Dostoevsky’s misery was now at its absolute peak, for he believed he had killed his beloved child by passing on his disease.

For throughout all of these trials, Dostoevsky was also ill. Since boyhood, he also had epilepsy. He had to endure humiliating fits, seizures and headaches. He was haunted for life by horrifying dreams of evil and terror. Yet the transcendence he experienced in the seconds prior to the attacks fueled his writing and his will to live. (The writer reported that the fits began after the staged execution. Many historians believe he’d had similar issues since childhood, age nine specifically, when he had some kind of seizure.)

“For several instants I experience a happiness that is impossible in an ordinary state, and of which other people have no conception. I feel full harmony in myself and in the whole world, and the feeling is so strong and sweet that for a few seconds of such bliss one could give up ten years of life, perhaps all of life. I felt that heaven descended to earth and swallowed me. I really attained god and was imbued with him. All of you healthy people don’t even suspect what happiness is, that happiness that we epileptics experience for a second before an attack.”

The writer records similar passages in The Idiot and his other works that feature visionary spiritual people- epileptics. These brief splashes of paradise in the grislystandingdost misery of existence were understandably cherished. Dostoevsky seemed certain that God was really coming through him. In fact, he referred controversially to the prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, as epileptic.

Scientist Clifford Pickover writes: “Dostoevsky, another famous epileptic whose works are filled with ecstatic visions of universal love (and terrible nightmares of uncanny fear and radical evil), thought it was obvious that Mohammad’s visions of God were triggered by epilepsy. “Mohammad assures us in this Koran that he had seen Paradise,” Dostoevsky notes. “He did not lie. He had indeed been in Paradise – during an attack of epilepsy, from which he suffered, as I do.””

What’s fascinating is that Dostoevsky knew that his visions and ecstasies were caused by his illness. And yet he was still dead certain that the symptoms revealed something real. It’s also interesting to note how interwoven religious delusions are in mental illness. Though human beings are hardwired to faith- atheism is rare and always has been- it’s undeniable that extreme religiosity and visions, delusions, voices, and so on are linked with schizophrenia. It’s common for mental health patients to report, and to believe in, messages from angels, Jesus, God. These messages are often beautiful and sometimes terrible, and they may come out of a hair dryer or out of the words of the newscaster or show up in a wallpaper pattern. It’s also a fact that most cult leaders are enigmatic, charismatic visionaries.

There are arguments over organic mental illness- epilepsy, for example, which produces electrical impulses that push against the brain- versus “mental” mental illness, or emotional instability. But the body is the mind is the spirit. Indeed, science knows that schizophrenia and depression are in fact imbalances of brain chemistry that CAUSE emotional problems, just as weak bones might cause knee problems. Are they the same as epilepsy, a seizure disorder? They aren’t the same, yet effective treatments for schizophrenia and bipolar are the same medications used for epileptic patients.

When big shot headshrinker Sigmund Freud came along, he lambasted Dostoevsky’s work as simpering sentimentality and wrote at length about how the writer’s particular form of epilepsy was hysterical, not organic. It was caused by his hatred of Dad, apparently, and that’s why it showed up most after stressor situations like a mock execution. (To be fair to the good doctor, he was certain that organic epilepsy was incompatible with razor sharp intellectual faculties, and so he assumed Dostoevsky had something else. Today we know that mental illness is often arm in arm with brilliance and creativity.)

Today we are coming closer to understanding that chemical and emotional are two sides of the same coin- each is causal of the other. We also know that high stress situations understandably involve severe emotional response- and that the cascade of motion in the brain’s network can ignite dreams, visions, fit, episodes, depressions, hallucinations, ecstasies, manias, whatever you want to call them. Sex, drugs, physical pain, and other triggers of emotions and endorphins can indeed incite a range of pleasant or terrifying effects, often both.

As modern science delves further into the unknown reaches of the brain, things get more and more astounding. The link between epilepsy, mental illness, religiosity, and creativity grows, as we enter the age of the God machine. Neurobiologist Michael Persinger has created a helmet and various scans and probes that are causing and examining religious experience networks in the brain. The science is in its infancy, but there’s already considerable evidence to show that déjà vu, ghosts, and other similar spiritual phenomenon goes hand in hand with electrical seizures in the brain- and diminishing oxygen brings on the white tunnel of near death experience. It’s the same reason kids hold their breath to get high and why some people prefer the strange practice of asphyxiation, by which they apparently experience visionary sex.

Atheists are quick to jump here on proof that God is all in our heads. Yet this “sickness” fueled the brilliance of Dostoevsky’s work, and gave him courage to endure unbelievable hardship. And he, for one, perceived it as God within us- is that the same thing? For millennia, the visionary was doped up and caged, or else he was the special shaman of society. The world over, humans ingest all manner of plant and pill in order to glimpse this world of paradise Dostoevsky describes- and then we wonder why it’s hard for the addict to give up drugs? Recall that the writer would give ten years of his life for that slim second of peace and harmony before his seizures.

And so, it can be understood why so many schizophrenic and bipolar patients prefer to avoid medication, the single biggest obstacle to treatment. But the light may disappear with the dark. Many schizophrenia patients report that they like the voices, feel close to or comforted by them, or of course, they are dead certain it’s ‘real’ and that they are afforded special insights that others can’t see.

The religious or supernatural connection to these kinds of visions extends way beyond Dostoevsky and his opinion about Mohammed. Fyodor writes in The Idiot about epileptic Myshkin, who is a Christ-like figure. But what about Jesus himself? What about Oral Roberts, who saw a 900-foot Jesus in the sky, who believes he raised people from the dead? What of The Book of Revelation, just one of hundreds of apocalyptic books that didn’t make it into the Biblical canon, all describing wonderful and terrible religious visions? What about Ezekiel and the chariot of fire? And what of Saint Paul, and the vision that inspired his conversion?

St. Paul spoke of a bodily affliction, a thorn in his flesh. Theories on this have abounded- was he gay? Deformed? Migraines? It was common before we had cures for infections for high fevers to damage the brain, and Paul had had malaria.

Of course, one accepts the prophecies and miracles of their own faith as God manifest, but prophecies and miracles of other faiths are surely mere insanity at best, and at worst, the devil incarnate. Joseph Smith receiving the golden tablets that only he could interpret is sheer lunacy to most of the world- yet millions of extraordinarily intelligent people called Mormons base their faith on this idea. Many Christians or Muslims would consider reincarnation beliefs heresy, yet millions of Buddhists are convinced and comforted when their leaders recount visions of their past lives. Yet paradise is sometimes hell- children are more often than not murdered by well-meaning parents, not by pedophiles- God was telling them to do it, to rid the child of demons or some such parallel.

Alien abductions and astral projection are an historically consistent fascination. Then there’s déjà vu, and jamais vu- the feeling you’ve never before been in your own house or yard. What gives?

Molecular biochemist Dr. Clifford Pickover says, “Temporal lobe epilepsy is caused by unusual electrical activity in the brain’s temporal lobes A significant proportion of people with TLE report that their seizures often bring on extraordinary experiences of transcendent wonder, luminous insight — or, at times, harrowing, uncanny fear.”

In The Vision of the Chariot: Transcendent Experience and Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, he says, “(Alien) abductees feel mild, epileptic-like symptoms just before they are ‘captured.’ Some abductees feel heat on one side of their faces, hear a ringing in their ears, and see flashes of light prior to an abduction. Others report a cessation of sound and feeling, or an overwhelming feeling of apprehension. All of this is typical of certain kinds of epileptic seizures.”

Whitley Strieber is arguably the most famous alien abductee in history, and he has written several books about his experience, most famously, Communion. He runs a website called Unknown Country, a support group for abductees. Pickover observes that Strieber documents TLE symptoms when describing the abduction- jamais vu, formication (crawling bugs on skin), “vivid smells, hallucinations, rapid heartbeats, the sensation of rising and falling, and partial amnesia.” Strieber was in fact diagnosed with epilepsy, but he refutes the diagnosis because polygraph and brain tests show that he isn’t lying- yet you’re not lying if you believe it was true! Just like others who have had visionary experiences, Strieber cannot be convinced the experience didn’t happen. In his case, it was not just a ‘window’ to the other world, but literally took place.
Mohammed shared the alien abduction theme in his vision, particularly the medical experiments that most abductees report. “Two men in white raiment came and threw me down and opened up my belly and searched inside for I don’t know what,” the prophet told his foster parents when he was five years old.

In Varieties of Religious Experience, psychologist William James warns us not to dismiss mystical events just because they came from electrical impulses. He reminds us that every single thought, however rational, anyone has, comes from the body.

Indeed, about a third of us have had religious experiences- can this be accounted for by some misfiring of the brain? Or is this exalted state actually the real deal, the divine, whereas the normal states are earthly ones, just as the visionaries profess?

September 7th, 1880, Dostoevsky’s journal reads: “This morning at 8.45, interruption of my thoughts, transported into other years, dreams, dreamy states, dreaminess…” It was the same year that his favourite child died, the final burden the writer would have to bear. The novel The Brothers Karamazov was underway, and much of it examined epilepsy, though the work was overall a culmination of the great psychological questions Dostoevsky wrestled with. Reason versus faith, doubt, the spiritual struggle, the question of free will, belonging, murder, family, fate -and indeed, the validity of epileptic experience, whether spiritual or organic- all the questions that science and psychology is examining today.

Dostoevsky said he’d be happy if he finished his book before he died, having great difficulty in writing it after the tragedy of losing his son. However, he wrote his son into the book by naming the hero after Alyosha.

A few months after The Brothers Karamazov was published, Fyodor Dostoevsky died of epileptic hemorrhaging. It was 1881. The novel was a supreme masterpiece, the writer’s crowning achievement.

It’s a gorgeous spring day, 128 years after Dostoevsky’s death, thousands of miles from political oppression and turmoil. Sitting on a Starbucks patio with The Brothers Karamazov and a friend, I wish the great writer were here today. We’d like to discuss a few things with Fyodor- one of them my central belief that mental illness isn’t mental illness, but what I like to call mental is-ness. Anger, delusion, sorrow, fear- just because something is unpleasant, doesn’t mean it’s sick. And conversely, the deep religious convictions we’ve had, and indeed the deep psychedelic experiences we’ve embarked on, are not sick just because joy doesn’t usually extend so far.

I’ve long believed that the chemical soup of which we are made is not a reduction of the human spirit or soul, but that it IS the human spirit or soul. My own bipolar life means torrential creativity even as it means frustration for idea cascades that never see completion. As a writer, I am, like Dostoevsky was, attached to my experiences of beauty, and accept the dark damnation that often follows in long depressions. Like most manic-depressives, I fear losing the exalted states and though the despair is hell, it teaches me the truth about the world.

Moreover, my benign and delightful belief in the magic of objects and the presence of spirits gives me profound connectivity. My grief is assuaged toward certain losses, when I feel my dead friend’s presence through an object he has left for me. How could I be a writer at all if it weren’t for my beautiful unquiet mind? I can’t shake the feeling that the meaning of life is indeed imbedded in the mystery of the mind, and the most intimate contact I have with a mind is with my own.

Dostoevsky suffered to show us a mirror to ourselves, to those sleepless nights inside us where the heart cries out to God for love, where we struggle with the big questions on the nature of man. And yet, sometimes, we glimpse the heartbeat of beauty and love and it keeps us going, whether or not it is a delusion.

If you like art, literature, madness and interesting people, you’ll love Lorette C. Luzajic’s books. Her first book is “The Astronaut’s Wife: Poems of Eros and Thanatos.” Her second is “Weird Monologues for a Rainy Life (Irreverent Ramblings from the End of the World.)” Her poetry and her collected blogs, musings, reviews, memoirs, notes, eulogies, requiems, interviews, profiles and more both devastating and hilarious romps through one woman’s wild mood swings- proving there’s life after death, even for manic depressives. “Think Courtney Love meets Margaret Atwood,” says Donnarama, Toronto’s premiere performance artist.

Visit the author’s link at Amazon to order your copies today!

weirdmonologuescover

The Other Heiress: The Marchesa Luisa di Casati

I was fourteen when I fell in love with a mysterious redhead I met at the Art Gallery of Ontario. I fancied myself a seasoned intellectual, a young lady of literary tastes and culture, despite my blue-collar country upbringing. And so I would take the Greyhound into Toronto, and dressed in something as obscure and outlandish as a girl could muster on a babysitter’s income, I would visit the gallery. My heart beat faster when I saw her. Her eyes were daunting, piercing through an alabaster visage, set afire with a mop of carrot curls.

We never spoke, because my redhead haunted me from a canvas painted by Augustus John. From her backdrop of sea-foam green, she never flinched, but held my gaze with her own, and an expression of both curiousity and haughty disdain. I was sure she was eccentric, that she must be a writer like me, a woman ofcasati outrageous tastes and interesting lovers. She was the woman I wanted to be when I grew up.

The famous painting is one of the Toronto gallery’s highlights to this day. “Luisa Casati should be shot, stuffed and displayed in a glass case,” is what the artist Augustus John said of the Marchesa.

John was not the only artist to paint this captivating femme fatale. Indeed, her whole celebrity was based on her lavish extravagance and eccentricity, which made her muse for the artists and literati of Europe in her time. Born in 1881, she reigned supreme over the imagination of anyone with a heartbeat for the first three decades of the 1900s. Her estate archives suggest she may be the most “artistically represented” woman after Cleopatra and the Virgin Mary. Sculptures, photographs, sketches and paintings preserve her spirit long beyond her death in 1957. She posed for Man Ray, Cecil Beaton, Kees Van Dongen, and Jacob Epstein. She captivated Erte, Jack Kerouac, Jean Cocteau, Tallulah Bankhead, Tennessee Williams, Ezra Pound, Colette and Coco Chanel. Her pets inspired the famous Cartier Panther design. Later, she was played by silver screen legends Vivien Leigh and Ingrid Bergman.

But who was she, and what was all the hoopla about? Was she beautiful? What talents did she possess?

Luisa, born in Milan in 1881, was the daughter of a wealthy Austrian cotton manufacturer who was made count by King Umberto the first for his contributions to the cotton industry. Luisa was born rich, but she was an unfortunate looking child, with bulging alien eyes on a harshly chiseled face. She was also very shy. But she was fiercely intelligent and curious about arts and culture, and her passions were encouraged with visits to museums and art galleries. Very early on, Luisa became enchanted with eccentric royalty or outrageous theatre figures, a fascination that was to continue through her lifetime.

Luisa’s mother died when she was just 13, and then the Count died two years later. Luisa and her only sister were the richest women in Italy at the time. The girls moved into the care of an uncle, but a few years later, Luisa married Camillo Casati Stampa di Soncino, Marchese di Roma. They had one child a year later, and Luisa soon found that wedded bliss was stifling her style, and the pair took up separate residences. Though she’d picked up a fascinating with the mystical arts and the macabre from her husband, she soon began an affair with the famous Italian lover, poet Gabriele D’Annunzio. The affair lasted decades, and the friendship a lifetime. It was at the time of this relationship that Luisa began to explore her deepest eccentricities and vanities, becoming a truly Gothic heroine and dandy. She artfully blended the macabre with the outlandish in her demeanor, surroundings, and fashion- the freakier, the better. She engaged in scandalous love affairs, with both men and women. Her decadence was supreme and captivating. Disregarding her childhood insecurities, she seized the tall, ghostly androgyny and accentuated it wildly, powdering her face whiter, circling her eyes with black kohl, smudging her lips in vermillion. It’s a look that reappears on fashion runways every few seasons even today.
boldini_marchesacasati
“The face was that of a sinister Pierrot, utterly white, the thin mouth a slit that seemed to be of the same black as the rings encircling the eyes. The high cheekbones, the forward-thrusting chin, the long neck bespoke the apparition’s class,” said Philippe Jullian. “Was this the vampire Nosferatu in drag or the daughter of Dracula turned grandmother?”

The Marchesa had a penchant for outrageous luxury. She went to Paris, Rome, Capri, buying palaces! She loved to lavishly and bizarrely entertain guests of artistic or aristocratic temperament, hostessing grandiose masquerade balls. She painted her Nubian servants gold. She had wax mannequins made to populate her rooms- legend says they were modeled after her lovers. And like fellow eccentrics Lord Byron, Josephine Baker, and Michael Jackson, the Marchesa had her own menagerie of pets.

She could be seen in her skintight long velvet gowns walking her greyhounds- or her pet cheetahs. She wore live, gilded snakes as necklaces. Isidora Duncan recounts her experience as Luisa’s visitor. A parrot greeted her with a tirade of vulgarities. A while bulldog snarled. A cobra hissed from a cage. The walls and floors were covered in white bear skins and tiger skins. “There was a gorilla, showing its teeth.” The Marchesa drove in a carriage fronted by twin leopards. She carried a monkey in a cage. Others complained of the stench, but she gave him a sprig of lilacs, which he flung about, scattering the petals. “Now do you see why I have a monkey? Don’t you think that’s beautiful?” Luisa asked her detractors. “Isn’t it like something in a Chinese painting?”

Her biographers Scot D. Ryersson, Michael Orlando Yaccarino, Quentin Crisp, in Infinite Variety, tell the above anecdote. They also recount how her palace gardens were filled with a veritable zoo, and that she sometimes sailed the canals with her selection of primates, tigers, and exotic birds. There were white peacocks, ocelots, boa constrictors, and albino blackbirds.

“She was the most flamboyant and dramatic character to flit through the early 20th century European beau monde,” writes Michael Mattis at www.dandyism.net.  “They simply don’t make her kind anymore: richer than God, gloriously semi-sane, with outrageous taste in friends, art, décor, clothes, houses, pets and lovers. Guests of Casati’s boudoir were a veritable who’s who of the aristos, aesthetes, artists, bons vivants, poets, dancers and dandies that made the early 20th century’s art scene what it was: totally, utterly, and delightfully mad.”

A Polish sculptor named Catherine Barjanksky once said, “She was so different from other women that ordinary clothes were impossible for her.” The artist described Luisa’s ensemble of one occasion as something out of Thousand and One Nights. “Long Persian trousers of heavy gold brocade, fastened tightly…. held by diamond bangles…feet encased in gold sandals with high diamond heels…she smoked cigarettes out of a long black mouthpiece studded with diamonds.”

The Marchesa has been criticized for the bottomless well of her vanity. Would she have been so outrageous if she attracted no attention? Furthermore, she had hundreds of portraits made of herself in ink and oil and photograph. Her motivation, hardly original, yet clear as a bell, was simply this famous statement: “I want to be a living work of art.” Luisa wished to make herself immortal, and so she made herself memorable, with portraits that would bring her to life centuries after her passing.

Luisa was also criticized for being a showy, flamboyant personality despite contributing no art or literature to society. Her talents were mere shock value and superficial veneer.

But this is hardly a fair critique when one considers not only the inspirational value of the muse, but the monetary injections her estate provided for endless artists, sculptors, photographers, costumiers, designers, dancers, actors, musicians, writers, theatres, even puppeteers. Her high profile cemented their stature in some cases, and others had a chance at a career because of her. Her lavish splurging boosted the productivity and importance of the arts in Europe after the turn of last century.

Just as important as her money was the attention she brought to the arts and literary affairs. People flocked in droves to events just to see the living work of art, and thus the arts themselves gained considerably in both finance and audience. The importance of this role cannot be understated. This was a vivid time in Europe for arts and culture, with other eccentrics like Ballet Russes superstar Nijinsky and opera/theatre artist Erte and a whole host of others mingling around salons and galleries. But the roots of these geniuses and most of their company were humble. Luisa’s grandiosity fuelled the development of greatness.

Today we depend on the fickle and disinterested government arts grants and listen to other taxpayers complain that they could care less about opera or oil painting. Or we watch artists and writers live their passion very nearly in the gutter. The Marchesa was a patroness extraordinaire who valued the arts above all else, even, I believe, above her own image. I am certain that the meaning of her vanity was rooted in her absolute devotion to the creativity of the human imagination. It takes tremendous vanity to fuel the salons and cafes and theatres of Europe, and this was the Marchesa’s fate.

But alas, even for a filthy rich heiress, the bottomless well of gold runs out after one too many monkeys. By the early 1930s, the Marchesa had spent more than everything, overdrawn by some 25 million dollars.

Even her penitence was the height of elegant soap operatics. She appeared before the Parisian archbishop to seek his forgiveness, dressed from head to toe in white, carried by four valets, holding white flowers and an albino parrot on her lap.

Her estates were sold to pay off her debts, and the lady Luisa spent 25 years in England in humbling circumstance. But she lost none of her pluck, apparently- legend holds that the Marchesa could be seen strolling the alleyways, dumpster diving for feathers and other accoutrements with which to decorate her bonnets.

Luisa’s long-term lover, the poet Gabriele D’Annunzio wondered, “By what fire did she transmute the substance of her life into the beauties of such moving power? She demonstrated how true it is that all enchantment is a madness induced with art.”

Today I stood at the renovated and spectacular new Art Gallery of Ontario. More than two decades have gone by since I was first astonished and seduced by the portrait. Now I know that Augustus John was her lover, too, and that the effect she had on me was precisely the one she wanted to have on anyone who laid eyes on her. Amazingly, this picture was purchased for a mere 1500 pounds in 1934. It is said to be the best loved work in the gallery. Clearly, her ability to make an instant audience wherever she goes has prevailed long after she died. She was indeed the living work of art she wanted to be. Immortal.

Every portrait of the Marchesa shows another side, another layer, and John’s is disarming for its near-softness. He avoided the Gothic, macabre, darker incarnations and focused on the shock of her orange hair, flaming against a grey-green backdrop. She is pale, almost vulnerable, turning guardedly to her observer, yet unflinching. She shows that her intensity is still present even when undressed of her carriages and strange pets and vampiric gowns, never having been dependent on those things after all. Here, as ever, she does not flinch. She makes no apology for the fact that she is everyone’s lover, and not just mine. There is enough of her to go around, and always will be.


“Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale her infinite variety.”

- Shakespeare, on Marchesa’s tomb, 1957

Visit writer Lorette C. Luzajic at www.thegirlcanwrite.net.

The Accidental Artist: the Story of Frida Kahlo

Frida Kahlo spent most of her 47 years sick and confined to her bed, but thatfrida_kahlo_small_0trimmed didn’t stop her from having torrid erotic affairs with both men and women. She was an intense, passionate, fiercely intelligent woman with a formidable unibrow. She wanted to be a doctor but fate intervened, and she became an artist, literally by accident.

read Frida’s story at Fascinating Queers at Out Impact

http://www.outimpact.com/features/news-features/spotlights-news-features-features/fascinating-queers/accidental-artist-story-frida-kahlo-2157

Little Boy Lost: Henry Darger, 1892-1973

It would be unfortunate to be remembered as a child molester and a serial killer. And thanks to art world gossip and posthumous psychiatric diagnoses, that’s how outsider artist Henry Darger will always be known. But it’s highly unlikely the unassuming loner ever touched a living soul.

Indeed, it’s probable that Chicago’s Henry Darger was the total opposite, a champion of the forgotten children, but sensation-seekers have sullied his reputation without careful reflection. Henry’s legacy was an extraordinary treasure that was never meant for us: a FIFTEEN THOUSAND-page fantasy novel and hundreds of accompanying watercolour and collage illustrations. The reclusive Henry Darger had only one friend throughout his bleak, impoverished life as a hospital janitor. Though he worked hard and was unkind to no one, he asked to be left alone if approached. He spent his nights in his rooming house hovel, talking to himself. Outside of work, he was only seen at mass, daily, sometimes several times, or rifling through the neighbourhood garbage in search of junk.

In the early 1970s, he took ill and was moved to a Chicago poorhouse to die. Henry’s landlords found his astonishing inner world in that stuffy room, thousands and thousands of pages of writing and painting, including the massive single-spaced epic, The Story of the Vivian Girls, in What is known as the Realms of the Unreal, of the Glandeco-Angelinnian War Storm, Caused by the Child Slave Rebellion. Besides this opus was a five thousand-page novel about a twister named Sweetie Pie, and another five thousand pager, an autobiography, partially fictional, about a savage and lonely childhood. There was a ten-year journal of the weather. There was all manner of ephemera, magazine and newspaper clippings, endless balls of string and empty Pepto Bismal bottles, and a library of childhood adventure books.

The Vivian Girls adventure story was obviously something of an obsession, and a private one, never shared. Coupled with some disturbingly violent scenes involving children, with matching illustrations, this strange oeuvre led to sweeping assumptions about the meaning of Henry’s obsessive nature. To add insult to injury, Canadian art historian and psychotherapist John M. MacGregor wrote a book – a trifling 720 pages, called Henry Darger In The Realms of The Unreal, insisting Darger was a murderer. MacGregor studied Darger’s text and illustration for many years, and even lived within the writer’s Chicago room. He then concluded with great certainty that “Darger’s psyche is arguably the mind of a serial killer made visible.” He writes, “Posed on the edge of violent and irrational sadistic and murderous activity… Whether or not they were acted upon, these are the ongoing fantasies of a serial killer.” The therapist stated that in all his knowledge of art he had never encountered anything equal to “the defiant aesthetic of this monstrous vision, only in the psychopathology of the serial killer do we encounter such calm, such ordered madness.”

Because Darger collected snippets from the newspaper about injured, abused, missing, or murdered children, MacGregor assumed this fixation was indicative of pedophilic darkness. It’s possible instead that Henry was crushed by the violence against the helpless, considering himself one of the defenseless ones, or their protective force who did not do his job. Henry became very distraught over a the loss of a picture of one missing girl named Elsie, who inspired his entire Vivian Girls saga, whose murder

Elsie

Elsie

remains unsolved. MacGregor goes so far as to suggest, ”the possibility that Darger committed the 1911 murder [of Elsie Paroubek…] should not be dismissed without examination.”

It may prove to be unfortunate that this writer’s sensationalism brought derision to the exquisite and innocent work of a deeply sad and isolated human being. Yes, there are watercolours depicting little girls being murdered by strange creatures, and scenes of battle. The epic is after all, about a battle between child slaves and evil forces, taking place on another planet. Perhaps the makers of Star Wars, the writers of the Chronicles of Narnia, Harry Potter, Nancy Drew, the Hardy Boys, Lord of the Rings, David and Goliath, and all other good versus evil story writers are also sadistic pedophiles. I find it quite telling that Henry is written into his saga as a protector of the Vivian Girls, helping them battle dark forces. He was avenger of innocent children. He was crushed by violence against children, not the perpetrator of it.

The Vivian Girls story contains the usual fantasy elements: princess sisters, terrible overlords, unusual alien species called Bengigomeneans, strange planets, creatures who are half human and half alien, and a Christian children’s nation in battle with the evil regime of slavery imposed on children by the Glandelinians. Like his father, Henry was a Civil War buff, and many themes and illustrations take inspiration from this era.

Another work, Crazy House: Further Adventures in Chicago, is a ten thousand page handwritten novel about the Vivian Girls and their secret brother, Penrod, who investigate the disappearance and murder of children inside a house. The story line merges two childhood classic themes- mystery detection a la Nancy Drew, and the haunted house with a mind of its own. The Vivian Girls exorcise the rooms of the house until it is clean and safe.

But was Henry’s writing any good? Of course that’s open to individual interpretation, and I have certainly read very little of the 35 thousand page legacy. What I have read is strange, riveting, sweeping, ebullient, disturbing, dreamy, astonishing prose, riddled with more adjectives and adverbs than most English teachers would accept. I would say it’s marvelous, expansive, stuff. Though the themes and images are clearly inspired by the limited world around him, along with his interior experience, it is work of an incredibly original imagination.

dargerpic2

As for his paintings, they are absolutely transfixing- sweeping tableaus in soft palettes, childish yet sophisticated, beautiful and tender, yet disturbing. Importantly, for the world of ‘outsider art,’ Henry was purely self-taught. He experimented with drawing, painting, collaging, and layering methods, solving his technical difficulties quite imaginatively. He devised systems of tracing and repetition, and he cut images from books or magazines and practiced their forms with his pencils. Sometimes the work has a primitive, simplistic feel to it, but along the way a confidence and mastery developed into his own style, totally distinctive, and completely recognizable to the audience- the audience he never intended to have. Jessica Yu’s 2004 documentary, In the Realms of the Unreal, is a particularly exquisite tribute to Henry’s work, both narrative and visual.

It must be mentioned that the so-called slasher material accounted for about one percent of the entire oeuvre. The rest was occupied with the dargerpropsvarious adventures of the characters, with unusual alien creatures, with illustrations of buoyant and vivid fairy-type critters, with pretty wings and flowers and dragon tales and scales and rainbows. His work is obviously a classic contrast of innocence versus evil, as are almost all good children’s stories. Certainly, it’s disturbing to lay eyes on a scene wherein a child is being strangled by a creature or by a nun. It was also disturbing to look at Goya’s work of Saturn eating his Children. I would also concede that scenes of epic crusades or torture, coupled with themes of innocence and punishment are staples of Roman Catholic mythology and art, and Henry absorbed Catholic theology and imagery for his entire lifetime.

dargergore2

Now, much has been made of the fact that many of the children are naked, and even weirder, that the little girls have penises. We’re not talking about intricate depictions of genitalia here, but crude sketching. What kind ofdarger sick mind would place a penis on girl children in his illustrations?

An innocent one. Darger was very likely so isolated from life experience that he may never have seen a girl or woman naked, a suggestion reasonably put forth by his landlady. There are no sexual acts taking place in the depictions- just occasionally naked kids frolicking.

Everyone is welcome to their opinion, of course, and here is mine: the diddler and the psychopath walk among us. It’s far more likely that your brother or uncle is a child molester than eccentrics like Henry Darger.

But wasn’t Henry just an ordinary man, also, someone’s brother or uncle?

Well, yes, and also, no. He was deeply troubled, eternally isolated, and though obviously intelligent, he did not cope in normal relationships with adults. Nor did he hang around with children. He was alone. He had one friend, once, whom he talked with in the park on occasion, and he liked his landlord’s dog. Though he was functional enough to attend mass services and show up for his custodial jobs, he was hardly the type of man with enough emotional intelligence to get ahead. He tried to adopt a child, but like most single men, impoverished workers, and mentally unstable individuals, he was ineligible.

The question remains, of course, why his entire inner obsession was centred on children. It’s easy to attribute a sexual drive to this strange focus, but there is a rather illuminating alternative hypothesis.

First off, though Henry evidently wasn’t retarded- he required some intelligence to write a beautifully readable and interesting fifteen thousand-page epic- it’s clear he never really developed into an adult thinker. He occupied the world of his imagination the way a child does, lived in it every day, lived for it. He read incessantly, mostly kid’s adventure novels and fantasies. And I believe he had no trust in adults, believing them to be evil at worst and frightening at best. We can speculate but not know for certain what type of psychiatric diagnoses, if any, Henry would have: he spent a great deal of time talking to himself, often in various voices, and making strange noises with his mouth- the latter from childhood forward. This may or may not represent hallucinations and delusions, and Tourette’s Syndrome or something similar. That he recoiled at all companionship except canine, may well indicate mild autism or the similar Asperger’s Syndrome.

The answers to the conundrum lie firmly in Henry’s unfortunate childhood. He was born into the most destitute circumstances, at home in Chicago, in April of 1892. When he was four years old, his mother Rose died giving birth to Henry’s nameless sister, who was put up for adoption. Henry lived with his father, a cripple, whom Henry wrote of nostalgically as being very kind. But the boy was orphaned at the age of eight when Dad was taken to the Little Sisters of the Poor to await death. This very poorhouse is where Henry himself would later die.

Henry was put into a Catholic children’s home, but several years later was farmed out again to a centre for the ‘feeble minded’- a children’s lunatic asylum. Because Henry made “funny noises” and acted oddly, he was considered insane, despite showing fair intelligence in his studies. There is some evidence that the actual diagnosis from those wonderfully wholesome Catholics was ‘self-abuse.’ Let’s send every twelve-year old boy who plays with himself to the nuthouse and see what happens.

Though Henry said he had some good times in his childhood homes, asylum life was filled with hard labour and torturous punishment. He attempted repeatedly to escape, which he did by age sixteen. He walked from the asylum in Lincoln, Illinois, back to Chicago, and on the way witnessed a massive tornado which may have provided inspiration for the hurricane Sweetie Pie book.

He took menial work as a custodian in a hospital, the type of work he held until the end. The only interruption in this monotonous routine was a brief service early on in the army during WW1. All evidence points to the probability that during his service, he never left the United States.

Henry had one friend in his lifetime, named William Shloder, with whom he formed the “Children’s Protection Society,” a two-man operation that met for conversation in the park. The Society’s hopes were to run an adoption ring to fit neglected and abused children into loving homes, but this was of course, unrealistic as neither man was a social worker or citizen of power. Shloder moved away but the pair wrote letters until he died in 1959.

Though the details are muddled and unclear, to me it’s obvious that the fodder for Henry’s imaginative works comes not from a dark desire to hurt kiddies, but from the position of hurt, defenseless, abandoned child himself. If Henry escaped torture, abuse, and sexual abuse in the various homes and asylums he lived in, he was very nearly the only one who did. Indeed, the asylum he stayed in was investigated for child abuse, and it was the norm in orphanages to punish children severely.

Clearly, scenes depicting adults like nuns strangling children shows what Henry witnessed or feared in these circumstances. Because he was an orphan himself, who had lost his little sister and could not adopt a child in return, his work focused on vigilant defense of innocents against the dark forces of adulthood. That Henry collected new items about hurt children was because he somehow believed he could protect them with his heart, that he could give them the Vivian Girls world where all abandoned children banded together to conquer the forces of darkness. The types of scenes he depicted and wrote about reflect Catholic history, war, anddargercath children’s adventure epics. The gory parts of the fables are solidly in context of martyrdom, and gory art was the norm in Catholicism, where Henry spent his life.

There is no way ‘to be sure’ about Henry, but examining the full body of his astonishing and beautiful imagery and stories, not just the battle scenes, gives a clearer picture. Henry’s imagination was obviously a strategy of self-protection and healing from abandonment and abuse and loss. Sure, it is possible that he fantasized about little children- so may have Charles Dickens, who wrote about poor kids, too, and so may have the man next door. More likely, Henry is what he said he was: a helpless child himself who pretended he could protect himself and others, avenge lost innocence. He loved the scattered, maligned, lost, abused children because he was one of them.

It’s fair to note that Henry’s landlords, the couple who knew him better than anyone else, find no reason whatsoever to question his innocence. They consider his work beautiful, and tragic.

Now Henry’s remarkable paintings fetch millions of dollars and endless psychiatric diagnoses, but it seems voyeuristic to even study their beauty and horror. If Henry had intended to share his work with others, he would have. But this world was something he created for survival, a thing ofhenry_darger beauty with battles he could win. Indeed, Henry was so private in his lifetime that only three pictures of him exist.

He died alone in 1973 and is buried, fittingly, in All Saints Cemetery, with a headstone that reads “Artist- Protector of Children.”

Lorette C. Luzajic writes from Toronto. She writes a column about spices and other food features for Gremolata.com, and has appeared in magazines and journals from Adbusters to The Fiddlehead to I Love Cats to Style Republic. But her favourite task is profiling interesting people. She writes a spin-off of this blog, called Fascinating Writers, for Bookslut.com.

Please order her amazing poetry collection, The Astronaut’s Wife.

Available at:

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Astronauts-Wife-Poems-Eros-Thanatos-Lorette-C-Luzajic/9781847287335-item.html

www.thegirlcanwrite.net/buybook.html

astronautswife1

Please support my blog by shopping for any books through this link:

chapters.indigo.ca

The Life and Death of Benjamin Chee Chee 1944-1977

The serene, spare elegance of Ojibway painter Benjamin Chee Chee was probably my first consciousness of art.

I babysat the neighbour kids, amazingly named the Friends, and loved going to their house, which was free of the clutter that defined our home. The clarity and breathing room there was a safe haven from the manic pace I came from. Mom was a compulsive hoarder, and the closest thing we had to art were Old Testament felt storyboards and macaroni fridge magnets. While there were countless wonderful things about my own home, there was also much chaos. The Friend family had selective, neatly laid out objects. I felt safe there. And it was the minimalist lines of Chee Chee’s bird paintings that mesmerized me most. I stared at their artful flight for hours after the kids went to bed. Of course, I knew then very little of art or of Indians or even Benjamin Chee Chee’s name, but those stunning paintings stayed in my mind’s eye. I forever associated peaceful serenity with the Temagami artist’s monochromatic and linear style.

But the handsome young native’s life and imagination was anything but serene. Rather, Benjamin was an orphan, a drifter, an alcoholic with a raging temper, in and out of trouble, and in and out of jail. He abused drugs as well, until he saw an acquaintance overdose and die. He burned himself with cigarettes. He was 32 at the end of his short story.

He was also at the height of his fame, and galleries were selling out every showing. He sometimes received rush commissions for ten or more works in order to stock public demand. And he had recently fulfilled his 20-year desire to find his mother, reunited with her at last. This search had consumed much of his life, but the reunion was perhaps disappointing. Both were glad, but veritable strangers. Josephine was a recovering alcoholic, happy to see her son, but she had little to offer him. A few months afterward, Benny was arrested for public drunkenness for the last time. He fashioned a noose from his clothing and slumped against the bars of his cell, dying in hospital three days later.

Chee Chee was born in northern Ontario’s Temagami in 1944, in the cabin of “Angele,” a woman who was the first wife of the naturalist and native poseur, Grey Owl. His name was Kenneth Thomas Chee Chee, and it was Angele who added “Benjamin.” His early years were spent on the Bear Island Indian Reserve. He never knew his father, who died while gathering firewood when his truck crashed through the ice to his freezing grave.

Mom Josephine struggled to survive her grief and support her family. She had no education and her only work experience was as a cleaning lady. She earned about 30 bucks a month as a widow, not nearly enough to support her child. Benjamin was often left with friends while Mom went out to work. By early adolescence, he did not even know where his mother was. And while the tall and good-looking kid had a witty and outgoing persona, he maintained few real friendships. He joked around to get over his shyness. He was sent to juvenile detention, where like countless other native children, he was abused. The boy took to booze early on, preferring the buzz to fleeting human relationships. It was impossible to trust anyone. He later had one serious relationship with a woman, Yvette, toward whom he was very kind, but he was violent toward her when he was drinking and so the affair didn’t last.

Although Chee Chee was drinking from his early teens, he had another deeper interest: drawing. No one was around to recognize or encourage the drifter’s considerable talent, but the boy took some comfort in sketching and occasionally expressed his desire to be an artist.

His immense gift was evident much later to a lawyer named Frederick Brown, whom Chee Chee met at a party in Montreal. Brown introduced him to other artists and helped him find a job in a warehouse. But the lawyer saw that in addition to general disruptive behaviour under the influence of alcohol, Chee Chee exhibited a great deal of hatred toward whites. While it is absolutely true that the authorities were harsher with Chee Chee and other Aboriginal Canadians in detention, and that poverty and racism were grim realities from the start, it was white people who recognized and boosted Chee Chee’s art career.

In the last four years of his life, he was valued as an artist and was on the verge of becoming very famous. Chee Chee had no formal training in art. Other native Canadian Woodland-school artists were painting in the Norval Morisseau tradition- symbolic native legends in a very beautiful and popular style. But Chee Chee preferred to be known on his own, and his sparse, elongated wildlife merged contemporary minimalism with his own ideas of Ojibway art, creating a style unique to him. Benny sold a considerable number of works during his brief career: they sold for $200 or so per print- or even per original- and now fetch upwards of ten grand each. It could be surmised that his suicide has made certain collectors and art world figures quite wealthy.

Indeed, Al Evans, a retired professor from the University of Waterloo, blames Chee Chee’s tragedy on whites like himself, and his book, Chee Chee: a Study of Aboriginal Suicide contains most of the very limited information we know of Benny’s life. He speculates in his fascinating text on the redemptive power of art, and generally champions Chee Chee, interpreting all of his flaws and violent outrages as the unavoidable side effects of a bad childhood. It is undeniable that Chee Chee is a victim, and undeniable that most native Canadians have suffered countless abuses and racisms that have devalued their heritage and contribution. It is true that a man with no roots and nothing in way of stability had little to cling to even when he achieved recognition, success, and reunion. His lawyer friend Frederick Brown said that in the artist’s last days, he was filled with incredible self-loathing and tormented by isolation, rejections, and darkness. Not even art could assuage the hopelessness and meaninglessness he experienced.

Evans quotes Chee Chee telling an interviewer about his artistic hope. “I wanted to be my own man. I wanted to develop a style that was so much my own that anyone looking at a painting by me would say at once, even if the work was unsigned, ‘Now that was done by Benjamin Chee Chee.’”

Indeed, as a young lady first addressing my own madness and my own inclinations toward creativity as both a writer and an artist, I spent long hours looking at those prints, and in my head. I made up legends about the native group who painted them. Naïve to art or folklore, I assumed the various prints were a ‘style’ and that Chee Chee was one member, kind of like the Group of Seven of which I would later learn, or the Woodland painters. I found some books of Indian legends at the library and read about the Great Spirit and Quebecois mythology and east coast native mythology like Glooskap. I made up stories to go with the paintings, stories of deep serenity and elegance and clean, harmonious living with wildlife. I was inventing my own ‘noble savage’ ideology to take me away from the cluttered chaos and upheaval of my own personal narrative. I meditated on the clarity and serenity of Chee Chee’s loons, breathing in the perceived calm. It was the first conscious healing I received from art. That my impressions and research were crude and naïve is forgivable- I was only eleven years old.

Though Chee Chee’s work was known for its linear grace, he himself was known as a man who fluctuated wildly between gregarious joking and drunken brutality. I’m not the only one who read into his work- critics, patrons, and other various art people also tended to over-interpret his work. Curator Elizabeth McLuhan saw ‘visual longing for a family he never had.’ Friends also saw representations in the wildlife of that romanticized family. But Chee Chee himself said in a calendar, “My drawings of birds and animals have no symbolic meaning from the past. To me they are creatures of the present and I draw them because I like their clean lines and beautiful shapes.”

That may be, but the grace that Chee Chee never knew somehow materialized in those beautiful, mysterious wildlife abstractions. Little Lorette never tired of studying the prints after my charges had fallen asleep and the dishes were done. It was the Friend house, too, that brought me solace- every troubled little girl needs a place to go, and my early responsibilities, along with the serenity of an alternate life, gave meaning and direction to any adolescent upheaval I was experiencing.

But things change, and the Friend family moved away, and I never went back into that very special house next door. The spirit of the walls, emptied of the artist’s grace, held an alternate legacy for the new tenants. In an absolutely haunting irony, one I wouldn’t connect until much later when as an adult I heard of Chee Chee’s demise, the new neighbour’s child hung himself in the basement of that house, eternally suspended in seventeen.

Visit writer Lorette C. Luzajic at www.thegirlcanwrite.net.

Please order her amazing poetry collection, The Astronaut’s Wife.

Available at:

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Astronauts-Wife-Poems-Eros-Thanatos-Lorette-C-Luzajic/9781847287335-item.html

www.thegirlcanwrite.net/buybook.html
astronautswife

Please support my blog by shopping for books through this link:

chapters.indigo.ca

Flowers for Vincent (1853-1890)

A few things come to mind when one hears the name Van Gogh- the outrageous multimillion-dollar auction sales for sunflowers and irises; the fact that he sold only one painting while he was alive; and something about insanity, severing his own ear, and sending it to a prostitute.

It is true that Van Gogh’s work, 100 years after they were created, are among the highest fetchers in all of art history. Multiple works have sold for more than $50 million a pop. The infamous Dutch artist, who lived in abject poverty on little more than coffee and turpentine and the odd prostitute, sold only one painting, named The Red Vineyard, near the end of his short life. Starry Night, arguably his most famous painting, was what he saw from the window of the lunatic asylum where he was confined. And yes, after a fight with his friend, the painter Paul Gauguin, with whom he frequented the whorehouses and absinthe parlours of France, he severed his own year with a razor, presented it to 16-year old Rachel, and went home to bed.

It all seems very sordid, and it was, but in context, it’s important to know that many artists were mad. They were free thinkers, in an era giving way to Impressionism and Modernism, moving away from the confines of realism and religiosity. And Vincent was not alone in his penchant for prostitutes- the cat houses in Paris and Montmartre in the late 1800s were meeting places where the café society gathered to discuss painting techniques and philosophy, drink absinthe, and meet women. Everybody was doing it. In this manner, Van Gogh did not stand out at all in his time.

But he was definitely not quite right, and the speculation continues to this day over ‘what was wrong with him.’ Van Gogh, born in 1853, said himself that when he had episodes- such as the severing of the ear- he did not recall a thing that was said or done during that time. He attempted suicide several times, following various rejections throughout his life, and though his alcoholism, absinthe addiction, and ingestion or inhalation of paints and cleaners- and possibly syphilis- all contributed most assuredly to his problems, Vincent’s head wasn’t screwed on straight from the beginning.

Or maybe it was, and society was all wrong. For Van Gogh was a deeply sensitive child, whose early days were spent staring at a grave marker that read Vincent Van Gogh. He was a replacement for the real Vince, whose death left his mother heartbroken and inattentive. Van Gogh was definitely one of the HSPs (‘highly sensitive persons’) and his original desires were not art, but social work and the ministry. He was a devout Christian, like his Calvinist pastor father. He wanted to reach out to the poor and downtrodden, like his good shepherd Jesus. The family was middle class, but Vince spent his emotions feeling sorry for the lower working classes. He was prone to mood swings, temper tantrums, and crying jags, often over nothing in particular but the state of the world.

By chance his very first job was as an art dealer, for an uncle was in the business and did a family favour. But Vincent fell in love, as he would do often and passionately, with the landlady’s daughter. She was engaged to another and the rejection brought about the first noticeable changes in the young man’s health. He grew thin and lived in silence, and became more religious.

Though Vincent stubbornly refused to study ‘dead languages’ he found irrelevant to missions work, an evangelical school took a chance on the young man’s considerable conviction. He was assigned to a remote post in a coal-mining community of Belgium. He didn’t fare well in this position because he was depressed by witnessing firsthand the deplorable conditions. Miners stood for hours in freezing water labouring at the coal, and their lungs filled with toxins. When explosions buried miners or injured them, Vincent worked into exhaustion tending to the wounded or comforting the grieving.

He gave his own lodgings to the homeless and lived in a hut without heat, and refused to tend to his hygiene, a luxury that was not afforded to the mineworkers. He became so embroiled in his compassion that he fed the insects and mice in his quarters while he himself went hungry. But in this depth of despair, he began documenting the scenes of labour, and these sketches began his ‘career’ as an artist.

From this point on, Vincent relied on a stipend from his brother Theo, and spent the rest of his life painting, in and out of psychiatric treatment. His brother was a successful art dealer in Paris, and was certain that brother Vince was a genius. Though Vincent did treat himself to occasional carousing, by and large, he lived as a pauper, never misusing the generosity of his family. He drank endless amounts of coffee, seldom bathed, and had ten teeth extracted. He was not exactly lavish- every penny possible went toward paint and canvas, and he produced ceaselessly, sometimes working so manically that he made a painting in an hour. Other times, he stared endlessly until he would grab the brushes and began angrily striking colour onto the canvas. His work, though tame by today’s standards, was considered outrageous. Though he painted perfectly respectable landscapes, flowers, or perspective scenes, and portraits, he did not use colour or brush strokes in a conventional way. He left some parts of the canvas bare, he mixed strange hues to brighten or darken a palette, and he let his emotions dictate the paint strokes he laid down. But it didn’t matter whether or not Vincent was free to wander with his painter acquaintances, or locked up in a room with little view- he painted endlessly from whatever was there in front of him.

Vincent’s depressive episodes were blamed on his overly sensitive heart.  He never got over an early rejection, his older cousin Kee, who responded to his marriage proposal rather clearly: “no, never, never.” Evidently she didn’t want him to have false hope, but poor Vincent insisted that he would go on loving her ‘until in the end she loves me.’

He never quite gave up this unrealistic passion, but went on to have an involved relationship with a prostitute, Sien, and her children, living altogether. Vincent by then had thrown out the hypocrisies of his childhood faith, developing a real hatred for the church and its insult on his intelligence, loathing its lack of kindness. He thought the clergy was vile but kept his love for the groovy JC in tact. He was convinced by his own interpretations of the Bible that Christ would take pity at women for whom there was no option but to sell themselves, rather than blaming these impoverished, widowed women for the downfall of society. To avenge himself of the sins of the church, Vincent took a rather unusual approach- he would himself help the whores, both by caring for them as friends, and by purchasing their services. “I am no friend of the present Christianity, though Jesus was sublime,” he wrote to his brother. “I have taken revenge…by worshipping the love which they…call sin, by respecting a whore…”

Like his empathy for the miners, he became so sensitive to the plight of women that he could probably be considered an early feminist. He condemned the clergy and religious rhetoric that spoke down to women. Indeed, he all but lost his early faith, feeling religious rejection as fiercely as any other rejection. “That God of the clergymen is as dead as a doornail,” he wrote. His family was outraged by the scandal of Vince and his hooker girlfriend- Sien was rather unattractive and in poor health, on top of it all, though Vince found her beautiful. To defend himself from his family’s disdain, he wrote, “No matter how good and noble she may be by nature, if she has no means…in present day society runs a great and immediate danger of…prostitution. Our life is so dependent on our relations with women…that it seems to me one must never think lightly of them.”

The scandals continued up until the end of Vincent’s short life. He became ill with gonorrhea, a common affliction in France at this time. Later, the only woman to ever fall in love with him attempted suicide after his rejection. There was a pregnancy out of wedlock blamed on him, as if he should be so lucky. He also hallucinated frequently that people were trying to harm him. This could point to paranoid schizophrenia, bipolar mania, or the effects of the absinthe. He attempted suicide by swallowing his paints during a particularly low point confined in the loony bin.  And after a fight with his beloved friend Gauguin, he chased the other painter with a razor, turning it on himself in the end, and sending his severed ear to a prostitute they both loved.  (It is highly unlikely that the two artists, both on the ugly side, were lovers, as some insinuate. There were plenty of homosexual liaisons and scandals in art history, but there is very little evidence or titillation to suggest that these unwashed, toothless madmen had anything but a brotherly love for one another.)

In the very end, he had a great deal of support and love from his brother Theo’s wife, who named their baby Vincent in his honour. Little Vince became ill, and Van Gogh felt that because he was a mooch and a leech, the baby did not have the proper care that more funds could have afforded him. It was around this time that he took psychiatric care with a doctor that many felt ‘played with his mind’ before putting a bullet into his stomach in the wheat fields near his brother’s house. He was 37 years old.

Brother Theo died from grief – or possibly from syphilis- six months later, ironically in a loony bin, having taken to violent fits against his loved ones and himself, similar to the outbursts and episodes that his brother suffered. He was buried alongside Vincent.

Theo left his widow Jo with all of Vincent’s paintings, and the rest is art history.

In 1888, a couple of years before both of their deaths, Theo wrote about Vincent in a letter to his wife: “That head of his has been occupied with contemporary society’s insoluble problems for so long, and he is still battling on with his goodheartedness…His efforts have not been in vain, but he will probably not live to see them come to fruition, for by the time people understand what he is saying in his paintings it will be too late. He is one of the most advanced painters…his ideas cover so much ground, examining what is human and how one should look at the world…I am sure he will be understood later on. It is just hard to say when.”

Visit writer and artist Lorette C. Luzajic at www.thegirlcanwrite.net.

(Letters quoted are thanks to Derek Fell’s amazing book Van Gogh’s Women.)

Portrait of the Artist as an Old Man: Outsider Bill Traylor

When listening to the discourse surrounding the work of outsider artists, I often feel it is a parody of the already ludicrous talk in the traditional gallery circuit. Indeed, it’s likely that most artists, even rich and famous ones, might be considered ‘outsider’. After all, most artist live unconventional lives, and most are driven to create, regardless of what our impression is of their creation. From Van Gogh to Basquiat, it’s safe to conclude that many artists are peculiar, to say the least, and that’s what makes the work fascinating. When I hear pretentious nattering about ‘masterful use of colour’ or ‘graffiti inspired surrealism’ from swollen urbanites, I think the point of art is sorely missed by nearly everyone who studies it. Whether we are looking at abstract paint drippings, flawless realism, or detailed pointillism, isn’t the real heart of art the story it tells of the artist, and of the artist’s world?

“Outsider Art” is a catchall phrase for various ‘isms’ in the art world. The term implies and assumes that the artist lives in some way outside the norm, that he or she exists in the margins, and that he or she be extra-eccentric, visionary, insane, or imprisoned. Outsider artists are also self-taught, without formal training in art. I truly suspect that most artists flirt with at least one or two of those categories, though most of the ‘masters’ had some training to help them tell their fascinating inner stories. Because classic outsider artists don’t, I feel that ‘criticism’ is kind of moot, and what is most vital is not ‘progression of form’ or ‘experimenting with perspective’ but what the images suggest about a person and the way he or she saw the world. Is art not one of the oldest forms of storytelling, after all?

It is this misstep, in my mind, that disallows much of the public from the enjoyment of art. It’s classic to hear, “My nephew could draw that- it’s hanging on my fridge!” Too many are locked out of their own experience of art because they supposedly lack the tools to interpret imagery. Meanwhile, the hoity-toity wine swillers are robbing the everyman of his totally valid experiences inside and outside of the gallery. Remember George Costanza’s horror at being asked to meet Jerry’s artist girlfriend? He felt like a buffoon inside of his own impression of art, and in trying to come off as knowledgeable and hip, he ends up buying a hideous abstract he can’t afford.

Now, in the early 1940s, Bill Traylor wondered what in the world his cardboard drawings were doing up on a gallery wall. Voices around him discussed his “world of sharply defined silhouetted figures and beasts (1),” and his “ongoing visual narrative (2).” They talked about “the elemental simplicity” and “the composition of beautiful play of straight and curves lines in its suggestion of some ritual dance or just a playful moment. (3)”


In reality, Traylor’s unschooled, childlike pencil and poster paint drawings were memorable because their story is remarkable, not because Traylor preferred primary colours and never mixed paints. These type of actions were not planned effects- this is a man who was born as a slave in Alabama, who began drawing at the age of 85, and made 1500 drawings in a three year period, sitting on a stoop in Montgomery, Alabama. The value is what the pictures reflect of an illiterate man’s life, of his memories growing up in a plantation cabin with no education, and becoming homeless in old age. This is a man who slept on a pile of rags among empty coffins in a funeral home, who manically created images that documented his mixed memories of his African heritage, his farming experiences, his love of dogs and cats, and his observations of the south.

Bill was probably born in 1856, and he wore the name Traylor like his “master,” George Traylor. He lived in a slave cabin in Benton, Alabama, and as an infant, his mother most likely tied him to a tree while she worked the fields, until he was old enough to help out, as was the tradition. The Civil War began when Bill was about five years old; heightening the abject poverty his slave family already lived in. Pork was plentiful, however, as were cabbage and collard greens, but Bill spent most of his life with no possessions at all. Writer Mary Lyons said that the people of small southern towns like Benton, Alabama, where Bill was, lived on “pure gumption.”

Traylor remained on the plantation for most of his life as a laborer after the war freed him to be paid. Little is known of the details of his adolescence and adulthood, but by his thirties, he had a wife and four children. Once, Bill said he had raised 20 children. He may have taken responsibility for kids orphaned by the war or hardship, or he may have had several sets of children if he married more than once. Though technically he was free, the KKK burned schoolhouses and Bill was illiterate. It was safest to stay on the plantation and farm for food. The former slaves made the workday more tolerable by singing rhythmic religious filed songs known as shouts or hollers. These songs later gave way to the blues.

Though cotton farming paid better wages, Bill tried to grow as much food as he could. He remarked once that, “You could have that building over there full of money, but you couldn’t eat it.” Most of Traylor’s long days were spent working the mules, growing food, plowing. Storytelling sustained the nights- legends of Railroad Bill, the ‘black Robin Hood” and voodoo legends gave depth and entertainment to family time. Of course, families like Bill’s looked forward to weekends: moonshine parties were common in Alabama, and everyone drank corn liquor and square danced to fiddlers. Fights were commonplace. “What little sense I did have,” Bill allegedly said, “Whiskey took away.” Of course, the sins of Saturday were taken in to the church on Sunday, and southern black Christianity was another way that Bill and families like his endured hardship.

Bill was almost 80 when “my white folks had died and my children scattered.” He worked briefly in a shoe factory in Montgomery, but his rheumatism was severe, forcing him to ‘retire’ on welfare wages of fifteen bucks a month. It was 1939, and on a stoop not far from the funeral home where he crashed among coffins, he drew his famous 1500 drawings in three years. He sketched on cardboard and found papers, with coloured pencils and sometimes poster paint. He drew mules and people and whiskey drinkers and cats and dogs and preachers and farms and teakettles. Observers saw how content the old man was, calmly smoking a pipe, drawing until late evening every day. He tied string to his drawings and hung them on a fence so people could see them, and when people bought them, usually for less than ten cents, Bill was amused. “Sometimes they buys ‘em when they don’t even need ‘em,” he apparently stated.

It’s a man named Charles Shannon that we must thank for the stories we know about Bill’s life as a freed slave. He was a trained artist who met Traylor on that Monroe Street stoop, and he was enchanted with the life Traylor was depicting. When Bill moved to the floor of a shoe repair store, he was able to work under an overhang, so he could work even if it was raining, and he stored his art behind a chest. Charles brought him art supplies and paints, most of which Bill never used.

Charles looked out for the unusual artist, but he was drafted in 1942. After the war, he found Traylor at his spot behind the pool hall, though Traylor had moved all over to live with various children. The old man was in poor health- he’d had gangrene, and his leg had been removed. The former slave had not felt inspired to draw during the war years, and he didn’t now. About a year later, Charles went to a hospital to visit Bill, and he was so aged and ill he couldn’t even speak.

Charles Shannon said he saw in Traylor “a kind of beautiful simplicity,” and he saved all of the man’s drawings when he passed on, probably around 1948. Shannon had helped organize three exhibitions of Traylor’s work while the artist was living, and he had been shy about it. For 30 years, Shannon held onto this treasure trove, but when he unearthed them decades later, during the 1970s, interest in his biography was strong. Whether Bill Traylor would have liked it or not, he became a famous artist.

1 and 2.Raw Creation, Outsider Art and Beyond, by John Maizels. Phaidon Press, 1996.
3. Self-Taught Artists of the Twentieth Century, by various curators at the Museum of American Folk Art. Chronicle Books, San Francisco, 1998.

Visit writer Lorette C. Luzajic at www.thegirlcanwrite.net.

Please order her amazing poetry collection, The Astronaut’s Wife.

Available at:

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Astronauts-Wife-Poems-Eros-Thanatos-Lorette-C-Luzajic/9781847287335-item.html

www.thegirlcanwrite.net/buybook.html

astronautswife3

Please support my blog by shopping for books through this link:
chapters.indigo.ca