It doesn’t affect the basic point, but van Gogh was pretty clearly schizophrenic, not depressed, wasn’t he? He’d need something like seroquel, rather than prozac.
Unless the individual is very severly disabled, it’s his or her choice to accept treatment or not. It’s not up to the art fans.
The “tortured artist” trope is a myth. For every Van Gogh you have a Picasso. Vincent’s illness didn’t make him the artist he was, his genius did. All it did was cut his life short. Who knows what he might have painted if he’d lived?
Sex addict. 
Plus, there’s evidence that his death was an accident that hadnothing to do with his mental state.
I’ve noticed a large number of successful Actors, Actresses eventually say they deal with Manic Depression. Patty Duke is one of the early ones. It does seem that her most brilliant work was before she got on meds. That doesn’t prove anything conclusive but it is interesting.
Margot Kidder and Carrie Fisher are also dealing with Manic Depression. Creative types seem to get it a lot more.
I’ve also been surprised at how many musicians suffer from Dyslexia.
Manic depression (now called bipolar disorder) is one of those illnesses that might actually be associated with creativity. During the manic phase, people have tons of energy and confidence and they can be very creative. Of course at some point they crash into the depressive phase.
It does make sense that someone who has trouble reading would end up choosing a career where you don’t really have to read.
This is a valid point and I probably have a skewed perspective because in my own family we tend to be completely devoid of artistic talent and creativity, except for the aforementioned nephew. His talent is rare in our family and so are his psychiatric issues, so there appeared to be a link (very unscientific given the single datapoint, I know).
Plus I just read an essay on Van Gogh that interpreted his art from a psychiatric perspective…the use of such and such colors portrays his deep anxiety, the use of swirls and particular brush strokes shows the disorganization and conflict in his mind, etc. I found the whole analysis very interesting, but of course who really knows how accurate it is.
This kind of got me thinking that while (in some cases), the use of psychiatric meds might remove the catalyst that inspires some people to create…maybe the use of meds can also bring out the creativity in others. I did my share of experimenting with mind altering drugs back in college and while I completely lack creativity without them…certain drugs really brought out my creative side. Would be an interesting study…
Anecdote time. I have a friend. He got a PhD in mathematics in 1963. Between 1963 (or even earlier) and around 1972 he produced the most amazingly creative mathematics. By 1969 he was a named full professor with a special allowance to bring in visitors, post-docs, etc. During the next two years, he continued to produce amazing mathematics, but was also totally out of control, leading demonstrations, insulting people, etc. By 1971 he was out of a job. At some point, he went on lithium. Since then he has calmed down, gotten a job, supervised students, etc., and pretty much stopped doing mathematics. You pays your money and you makes your choice.
:nodding: That’s exactly what happened to the friend I mentioned upthread – the “blunting”, as it were. As I said there, I’ve lost touch with him, so I have no idea if he ever returned to his music. I’d like to think yes, but remembering how the meds affected him, I’m not so sure.
I think that’s probably true at least in general. I visited the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam five or six years ago and you can see some of that. The painting that jumped out to me the most was Wheat Field with Crows, which is one of the last ones he finished- it’s almost impossible to look at it and not think that it reflects the state of mind of someone who knew the darkness was closing in. But it’s also true that sometimes he was too sick or depressed to paint. Some artists are tormented - I’ve always heard Byron was to blame for the mythologizing of suffering for your art - but some are pretty normal and just have talent and/or an interesting outlook without serious difficulty in functioning.
There’s also what my psychologist told me: if you have the symptoms but are coping on your own, then you aren’t mentally ill.
And, yes, if you’ve ever felt truly strong anxiety or depression, you know it’s not worth it. You can’t paint your way out of it: you’re still quite messed up, assuming you can do anything at all.
I can’t say I agree with this 100%. Sometimes coping comes at the expense of being fully productive or independent. If a highly anxious person is only able to cope with their problems by not working and being a recluse, then I would say they are not really well. Similarly, if a schizophrenic person can only do marginal work and spends all their free time collecting used cigarette butts and talking to themselves, but they are able to stay independent nonetheless, I’d have a hard time not feeling like they were still sick.
I don’t know if mad genius is going away or not. But it seems to me that for every potential Van Gogh that is disappearing to normalcy, there’s another person who–unmedicated–can’t do ANYTHING and now is able to be a Van Gogh or an Albert Einstein or regular Joe Blow off the street. So it might be a wash.
There is kind of a sweet spot in mania where you’re “high” enough to be very productive and do things that require a lot of energy, but not so “high” that you devolve into psychosis and can’t function. Ditto for depression; there is a sweet spot where you’re down enough to be reflective and introspective, but not so down that you’re delusional about your situation. The trick isn’t to blunt all of the mood swings away, but to dampen them. In other words, the goal isn’t to become completely numb, but to manage the symptoms enough that you can function.
And yeah, the extremes of peaks and valleys suck beyond measure.
How could you leave out the recent escapades of Charlie Sheen? Look how his manic phrase enhanced his career!:rolleyes:
I’m not on any psychiatric drugs. So I suppose I can’t really speak for whether the ways they change brain chemistry can actually attack the source of artistic ability. But I think there is a connection overall between something like depression or anxiety and artistic creation.
Human society doesn’t have a lot of outlets other than artistic ones for strong negative emotions. We try to avoid them altogether. That’s why people might tell you to smile when you’re looking down in the dumps or try to end a bad day by doing something that makes them happy. The whole primal scream thing is seen as pretty off the wall.
I remember being really frustrated and unhappy with my life when I was younger. I also remember writing poems and songs all the time, partially as a way to deal with those emotions. I don’t want to go back to that state of mind. I don’t think I’ve lost my “talent” (so to speak; I’m no genius) at all, because I still write poems and songs every once in a while that I’m happy with, but I no longer feel that I must do it. So the difference is now that, like all the well-adjusted artistic folk mentioned in this thread, I need to employ a lot of conscious effort and discipline.
People tell you to do those things because they make you feel better. The physical act of smiling tends to improve your mood because your brain associates smiling with feeling good.
Which is another reason mental illness is a hindrance to art over the longer term: it makes the conscious effort and discipline part even harder.
I always assumed it was because they wanted me to punch them in the face. The upside is that imagining doing so occasionally does make me smile, so everybody wins! I do, however, seriously doubt they have an altruistic motive rather than just not wanting to see any scowling faces.
As for the OP, there have been plenty of functional creative people, so I don’t think the drugs will ever get rid of artistic genius completely. I suppose the question becomes whether the number of people for whom psychiatric treatment decreases their productivity is greater than the number who would have committed suicide or been too messed up to produce anything in the absence of current treatments.
People can get uncomfortable with overt displays of negative emotion, sure. But they also suggest the smiling thing because it works from a psychological standpoint. That’s not to say it’s a cure-all because it obviously isn’t.
Yes, and I think for most people that works just fine. It’s still not an outlet for negative feelings, just a replacement for them. I think certain types of mental illness bring people to a point where they need an outlet.
I agree with this. I think the production of art by people who are tormented by mental illness is a really undirected and chaotic process. It occasionally results in amazing things but is certainly not guaranteed to, or to continue to do so once it has.