Health & Families

Rain (AM and PM) 7° London Hi 9°C / Lo 7°C

Creative minds: the links between mental illness and creativity

All too often, creativity goes hand in hand with mental illness. Now we're starting to understand why. Roger Dobson reports

Seneca: "There is no great genius without a tincture of madness."

Getty

Seneca: "There is no great genius without a tincture of madness."

At first glance, Einstein, Salvador Dali, Tony Hancock, and Beach Boy Brian Wilson would seem to have little in common. Their areas of physics, modern art, comedy, and rock music, are light years apart. So what, if anything, could possibly link minds that gave the world the theory of relativity, great surreal art, iconic comedy, and songs about surfing?

According to new research, psychosis could be the answer. Creative minds in all kinds of areas, from science to poetry, and mathematics to humour, may have traits associated with psychosis. Such traits may allow the unusual and sometimes bizarre thought processes associated with mental illness to fuel creativity. The theory is based on the idea that there is no clear dividing line between the healthy and the mentally ill. Rather, there is a continuum, with some people having psychotic traits without having the debilitating symptoms.

Mental illnesses have been around for thousands of years. Evolutionary theory suggests that in order for them to be still here, there must be some kind of survival advantage to them. If they were wholly bad, it's argued, natural selection would have seen them off long ago. In some cases the advantage is clear. Anxiety, for example, can be a mental illness with severe symptoms and consequences, but it is also a trait that at a non-clinical level has survival advantages. In healthy proportions, it keeps us alert and on our toes when threats are sensed.

It's now increasingly being argued that there are survival advantages to others forms of illness, too, because of the links between the traits associated with them and creativity. "It can be difficult for people to reconcile mental illness with the idea that traits may not be disabling. While people accept that there are health benefits to anxiety, they are more wary of schizophrenia and manic depression," says Professor Gordon Claridge, emeritus professor of abnormal psychology at Oxford University, who has edited a special edition of the journal Personality and Individual Differences, looking at the links between mental illness and creativity. "There is now a feeling that these traits have survived because they have some adaptive value. To be mildly manic depressive or mildly schizophrenic brings a flexibility of thought, an openness, and risk-taking behaviour, which does have some adaptive value in creativity. The price paid for having those traits is that some will have mental illness."

Research is providing support for the idea that creative people are more likely to have traits associated with mental illness. One study found that the incidence of mood disorders, suicide and institutionalisation to be 20 times higher among major British and Irish poets in the 200 years up to 1800. Other studies have shown that psychiatric patients perform better in tests of abstract thinking. Another study, based on 291 eminent and creative men in different fields, found that 69 per cent had a mental disorder of some kind. Scientists were the least affected, while artists and writers had increased diagnoses of psychosis.

"Most theorists agree that it is not the full-blown illness itself, but the milder forms of psychosis that are at the root of the association between creativity and madness," says Emilie Glazer, experimental psychologist and author of one of the Oxford journal papers. "The underlying traits linked with mild psychopathology enhance creative ability. In severe form, they are debilitating."

Research is also showing that traits associated with different mental illnesses have different effects on creativity. The creativity needed to develop the theory of relativity, is, for example, very different from that required for producing surreal paintings, or poetry.

Research is now homing in on whether the psychosis that is linked to different types of creativity comes through schizophrenia and schizotypy traits, through manic-depressive or cyclothymic traits, or traits associated with the autism and Asperger's disorders. A study at the University of Newcastle found significant differences between artistically creative people and mathematicians. While the artists showed schizotypy traits, mathematicians did not, and that fits in with the idea that mathematics and engineering, which require attention to detail, are closer to the autistic traits than to psychosis.

"Affective disorder perpetuates creativity limited to the normal," says Glazer, "while the schizoid person is predisposed to a sense of detachment from the world, free from social boundaries and able to consider alternative frameworks, producing creativity within the revolutionary sphere. Newton and Einstein's schizotypal orientation, for instance, enabled their revolutionary stamp in the sciences."

The stereotypical images of mad scientists working alone and preferring foaming beakers to friends, abound in literature, and reflect a popular perception of the aloof, detached and obsessive genius. But the idea goes back even further. 2000 years ago in Rome, the philosopher Seneca was obviously already on the case when he wrote: "There is no great genius without a tincture of madness."

It's no joke: Comedians and depression

Heard the one about the man who went to the doctor to get help for his depression? He's told to go and see a show with a well known comedian who would make him laugh and lift his spirits. "But that's me," says the patient. "I'm the comedian."

The joke, related by Rod Martin, author of 'The Psychology of Humor – An Integrative Approach', is apparently something of a favourite among comedians, who are known to be prone to depression, from the late Tony Hancock and Spike Milligan, to Stephen Fry and Paul Merton.

One theory is that humour is developed in response to depression, and that it works as a coping mechanism. One study, reported by Martin, looked at 55 male and 14 female comedians, all famous and successful. It found that comedians tended to be superior in intelligence, angry, suspicious, and depressed.

In addition, their early lives were characterised by suffering, isolation, and feelings of deprivation, and, he says, they used humour as a defence against anxiety, converting their feel ings of suppressed rage from physical to verbal aggression. "The comedic skills required for a successful career may well be developed as a means of compensating for earlier psychological losses and difficulties," says Martin. A second study did not find higher levels, although comedians had significantly greater preoccupation with themes of good and evil, unworthiness, self-deprecation, and duty and responsibility.

"A significant proportion of comedians do seem to suffer more with depression," says Professor Gordon Claridge, emeritus professor of abnormal psychology at Oxford University. "Comedy seems to act as a way of dealing with depression. I think there is an emotionality and cognitive style that goes along with these depressive disorders which seems to feed creativity."

Salvador Dali was not just a great artist. He also met the criteria for several psychosis diagnoses, a mixture of schizophrenic and depressive. He may also have been paranoid, as well having antisocial, histrionic, and narcissistic disorders. "Dalí and his contribution to the history of art highlights that abnormality is not necessarily disagreeable – or to be so readily dismissed as a sign of neurological disease. For without his instability, Dalí may not have created the great art that he did," says Caroline Murphy of Oxford.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
Of course....
[info]ancientoneuk wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 03:01 am (UTC)
... if you view life through the lens of Thomas Szaz and the anti-psychiatrists (my nursing final was on this for my RMN) then it is us who views life in a surreal anti-reality whereas those suffering from schizophrenia are those with "reality modifying mechanisms" removed leaving them exposed to the cold harsh reality that their minds cannot cope with.

Szaz's work is very interesting and gives an alternate viewpoint, that it is us "normal" thinking people that are mentally ill but we carry the vote because there is more of us to create this sense of normalcy, he treads the boards on thinking what would our world look like if the greater majority of us were stricken with such illnesses like mania, schizophrenia, through the floor depression and there is much merit in the human spirit being great adapters even when faced with the most horrendous of stimuli or factors.

I would recommend reading up on this fellow and other proponents of anti-psychiatry simply for the rare glimpse at how our lives could be.
Re: Of course....
[info]zoetropez wrote:
Wednesday, 6 May 2009 at 04:40 am (UTC)
As a young writer with some success currently working on my first novel, I have suffered from depression, anxiety, agoraphobia, drug and alcohol abuse, etc. all of my life. Sometimes I would gladly give up whatever talent I do possess in order to live a "normal" non-dramatic life. I'd love to settle down with a nice woman and have children and go to work each and every day, but the fact is, I can't. Writing is the only relief I get from the monster and the only thing I have that's mine. Maybe the monster is mine, as well, but it is not the romantic boho lifestyle straight people think it is. I imagine it must have been near physically painful to be Hemingway or Fitzgerald or David Foster Wallace--while being Dave Eggers must be a soft breeze.
About two weeks ago I jumped off a local parking deck trying to do myself in again. I landed on grass that was wet and soft enough from a recent sprinkler and lived.
All I've learned in my 16 year career in therapy and on anti-psychotic and SSRI drugs is to stay the H away from hard booze. I doubt I'll make it to 40.
Re: Of course.... - [info]ancientoneuk - Wednesday, 6 May 2009 at 08:12 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Of course.... - [info]anon_y_muse - Wednesday, 6 May 2009 at 11:29 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]the_kegs wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 08:56 am (UTC)
The only difference between insanity and eccentricity is the amount of money you have.
[info]sickofstupidity wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 05:59 pm (UTC)
And whom you offend or pose a threat to, of course.
Acknowledging a pioneer
[info]indypendancy wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 09:01 am (UTC)
It would be an omission not to mention the pioneering work of Kay Redfield Jamison regarding the creative advantages that may be bestowed by a 'severe, life-threatening mental illness'.

Fifteen years ago her book "Touched With Fire - Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament" provided a substantive review of the conclusions explored in this article.
[info]iain39 wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 09:45 am (UTC)
This shows the impossibility of fitting an organ as complex and mysterious as the brain, and the energy which must feed it, into the Dawkinesque philosophy of natural selection. In other words, what makes more babies stays with the race.

As we do not equate near-sightedness with superior vision, or consider sprained ankles a boon to athletes, we shold not equate psychosis with creativity.

It seems more likely that the brains of highly creative people are somehow functioning in a superior way. If so, then they would be more likely to be sensitive to pressures and demands than an ordinary functioning brain. There has to be some kind of psychic fuel behind the brain's activity, and the quality of this fuel, produced by either a healthy or unhealthy lifestyle, would explain why the creative are apt to depressive moods.

Unfortunately, using natural selection to explain the brain is like trying to build a likeness of the human form using only a few bricks of lego, and using such a crude system to adjust behaviour is like trying to fix DNA with a hammer.
[info]kai101 wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 11:12 am (UTC)
A stimulating riposte, Iain39, and music to an anti-Dawkinian. But what exactly is 'psychic fuel'? Also, explaining depression by the lack of healthy life style sounds about as blunt as taking a hammer to DNA. This sensitive mind remains open...

Interested readers might want to look for a catalogue of the art exhibit 'Melancholie' (Paris, Grand Palais, 2005).

kai101


Dawkins is doing just fine - [info]billdavy1949 - Wednesday, 6 May 2009 at 08:55 am (UTC) Expand
The creative mind & mental illness
[info]maximfodor wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 11:02 am (UTC)
There are various serious misconceptions to be spotted in this article. To begin with, that mental ilnesses may be inherited on the basis of an advantage in evolutionary terms, is obvious nonsense: any inheritable illness that keeps the victim alive long enough to procreate, will stay around. Then, treating mentally-ill traits connected with creative people as a cause of creativity is putting the horse behind the cart: anyone who knows something of the psychology of creativity, also knows that artists begin by having a personal vision, which subsequently creates social problems. Creative people suffer more severely from social pressures than 'adapted people' because they are more sensitive to them, because their creative drive is emotional in nature, not rational, and they have to rely upon them without the security of rational argument which makes them extra vulnerable to hostility from the environment. The environment mostly, following group dynamics, will criticise and exclude the 'deviant' person for 'undermining' consensus and group interests. This circle of interaction will over time create the symptoms and, sometimes, mental illness which are spotted in the mentioned research. Also normal people can get mental illnesses as a result of serious stress or trauma. That psychiatric patients perform better in abstract thinking, is also better explained by inversing the conclusion: unusual characters get more isolated and hence, their thinking gets 'freer' from the 'clutter' of more intense human contact, they can see things more at a distance, a normal result with ANY isolated individual. The relation between a 'schizoid person' and revolutionary thought is the same thing: the more an individual sports original, i.e. deviating ideas, the more he will get isolated, affecting the normal instinctive needs of any human being. The mystery of creativity BEGINS with a given, natural talent, which shapes the development of the personality. The trauma of exclusion is the price geniusses pay for their originality. Why are there fully-schizoid people, fully insane patients, without the slightest creativity? They suffer from similar problems but not caused by being original, but by either physical problems or another kind of emotional/personal trauma. The same with 'depressive comedians': does it not cross the mind of these researchers that, with a comedian, depression could be the perfectly normal result of having a job that forces one to be humorous on a daily basis? Then Dali: he was an exception among artists for being really rather deranged, which is obvious to anyone who has read his ' Diary of a genius'. Dali was 'deranged' as a result of other causes than his talent. Most visual artists are/were normal people with the usual problems resulting from their talent. To take Dali as a sort of 'representative' of visual artists in general, creates a hughe distortion.

As an artist/intellectual myself, with lots of creative people as friends, and having observed them in their lives over decades, it is obvious to me that the psychology of 'the creative mind' does NOT differ from that of the 'normal' mind. An artist's tools are emotional faculties without the support of rational argument; this makes him vulnerable to attacks and rejection. This explains the more stable minds of scientists: they function in a rational way, which provides them with emotional strength because of their reliance upon rational argument. An original artist has much more difficulty to justify (also to himself) what he is doing, and much of the struggle to get there where he needs to be is a traumatic trajectory in which his normal human condition suffers from the unique position in which he has been forced by the interaction between individual and environment. Hence the irrational and sometimes destructive reactions and behavior of many artists - that is, after the Ancien Regime period in which artists were artisans and fully included in a social system which left no room for much individuality.

The conslucion can only be that the research as mentioned in the article is totally pointless, useless and seriously flawed.

Re: The creative mind & mental illness
[info]iam1ur2 wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 02:50 pm (UTC)
Thank you.
Re: The creative mind & mental illness - [info]claimant1 - Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 04:40 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: The creative mind & mental illness - [info]give_me_1_break - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 03:02 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]bobav wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 11:11 am (UTC)
What kind of idiot bases their life's work on proving that genius lives in the same room as insanity? What is the purpose and motivation for proving that the most creative among us and the most productive, the leading edge of human evolution, are crazy?

To me this sounds like some kind of serious anti-social disorder rooted in pre-verbal rage against those who are more vital and have, over all, more interesting lives, and a more direct and readily accessible connection to the divine, than your average emeritus professor who's entire functioning level would self-destruct if you took away their propensity to want to put everything in smaller and smaller compartments. Maybe they had a sibling who was favored over them from birth and they were left with blocks to love instead of parents.

Perhaps we should be asking ourselves more about our own perception of what exactly is insane. It seems a broadening would be in order as opposed to this kind of narrowing.

At any rate I would like a similar study done on groups of people who are in charge of bombing, torturing and stealing natural resources from poor people who almost always have dark skin. What is the pattern of psychosis and mental instability in that group?
maximfodor and bobav
[info]bleucheeseblues wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 07:54 pm (UTC)
Both great observations, and i agree with bobav completely in that there should be a widening perspective on what is sane, not narrowing.

So ALL geniuses are insane, yet without geniuses there would be no advancement in art and science, thus no advancement of humanity. If it were not for "mental illness" i suppose we'd all still be living in caves instead of being crazy enough to take on the harsh wild world around us.

What is insane in my opinion is those who would do nothing great with their lives and settle for a meaningless existence
Re: maximfodor and bobav - [info]bobav - Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 08:26 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]ancientoneuk - Wednesday, 6 May 2009 at 08:22 am (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]bobav - Wednesday, 6 May 2009 at 10:43 am (UTC) Expand
quote
[info]lucytang wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 12:33 pm (UTC)
I think Seneca's quote may be more accurately attributed to Aristotle.
Re: quote
[info]imagechalice wrote:
Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 05:09 pm (UTC)
You may be right about this. However, as someone who is apparently literate, can I point out that 'quote' is a verb, 'quotation' the noun.
Re: quote - [info]a4r0n_5 - Monday, 11 May 2009 at 05:16 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: quote - [info]imagechalice - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 06:30 pm (UTC) Expand
Insanity
[info]trojan_horace wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 01:38 pm (UTC)
For every clinical genius with disordered wiring who is busy creating "great works," there are a hundred mentally ill people who's main contribution is to inadvertently make life a living hell for those family members bound to them. I don't think the Anti-Psychiatrists ever intended madness to be deified - merely to be treated with more compassion and comprehension as a coping mechanism in the dehumanized medical-model total institutions of the day.
Re: Insanity
[info]bobav wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 08:58 pm (UTC)
Perhaps we should reframe this to say that it is the illness that makes the lives of family members bound to them a living hell, not the person afflicted... and if the family members suffer, what can we surmise about level of living hell do those afflicted with mental illness live in?
(no subject) - [info]trvnwright8563 - Monday, 26 October 2009 at 11:55 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Insanity - [info]bobav - Monday, 26 October 2009 at 10:19 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Insanity - [info]bobav - Monday, 26 October 2009 at 10:21 pm (UTC) Expand
FREEDOM
[info]iam1ur2 wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 02:35 pm (UTC)
Like an enigma through the much traversed labyinth of labor for the specticals of life searching through the looking glass is it better to sit alone
by the bank of a river under a cresent moon or be surrounded by the specticals calloused and fatigued scared a representation of yourself bad product from a bad society ugly and repugnant becoming a habit then our habits become duty expecting nothing of anything we have not altered.
Me... I can't stand the grotesqueness of controlling people wanting to be rid of me only because I don't prescribe to their ways.
Re: FREEDOM
[info]trvnwright8563 wrote:
Monday, 26 October 2009 at 12:23 pm (UTC)
Geniuses and insane people are alike...they are unbalanced. Meet a genius and talk to him...forget about small talk cause that won't happen...What I mean is that both type of people you meet are "strange"... therefore in my opinion this article is more than accurate...But I can understand where you're coming from.

Cheers,
Trevon

Credit Score Range
Cure Anxiety Attacks
more Photgrapher ramblings.
[info]steve440 wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 03:30 pm (UTC)
Hey this all makes a lot of sense, but isn't it a bit obvious. If I'm anything to go by then the creativity is fuelled very much by anger, and when the other option would be to run amok with a cutless then creativity is no bad thing, also why not ask the dangerous question guys n gals. Is Sanity equally angry, and merely an expression of a repressed mind, :-)

Thanks to the indy for this one I feel a lot better about myself for reading it........
Re: The creative mind & mental illness
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 03:34 pm (UTC)
Fascinating stuff maximfodor. But I'm not entirely convinced by your cart and horse analysis. You say that the artist begins with a personal vision, which subsequently creates social problems. Could it be, personal vision is a product of inherited genes (the cart), and to some extent the environment (nuturing the ability).

Is the cast set at the genetic level and all else (isolation, depression, in varying degrees), a natural by-product of the genetic make-up of an individual? And of course the combination of genes is in itself a conundrum. One creative person may be nervous, lacking confidence, introverted and depressed. Another might be confident, introverted and content in his/her own company.

I imagine there is a substantial amount of research in this area (I'm no expert), without any significant consensus.
[info]gannic wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 04:01 pm (UTC)
tell me something we don't know.....
[info]gannic wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 04:01 pm (UTC)
tell me something we don't know....
schizophrenia
[info]littleblue49 wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 04:03 pm (UTC)
My point is this i have been out with a doctor who was at the top of his profession, i have a daughter who again could have been a international model due to her photogenic gift i was told by professonal photographers, both were given labels of schizophrenia severe mental illness, In both cases there lifes stopped due to there illness. I feel the time is right to have a debate on these's issues in this Country!
madness and creativity
[info]jona123 wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 05:13 pm (UTC)
One of the problems of gathering together mental illness and creativity (something which was usefully illustrated by Louis Sass in Madness and Modernity), is that it gathers the creation along with the dross. Not all the sayings of someone with a psychosis either make sense or are part of some as yet new horizon.
The comedian Spike Milligan often used the concrete form of thinking is his sketches - that is taking things literally, something that Paul Merton also utilises. Now this taken in isolation is one of the features of so called schizophrenic thought. Yet for these comedians it is used as comic contrast and with often ludricuously funny results (or bizarre depending on your evaluations). Yet this thinking occurs,or is placed in a social structure which to a certain extent encourages it and holds it in check. Without this structure and when the impulse behind it exceeds the ability to use it, it collapses in mania or depression.
If the move is into psychosis proper and accompanying delusion then the structure is just not there to make any meaningful connection. The individual issues assertions which for them are imbued with deep meaning but they fail to communicate that to the audience. They are lost in a set of structures which in many of the ramblings I have been priviliged to hear (and that is no sarcasm, and they have been many) no connections which can be communicated can be made. It might therefore be interesting to say, that the Schizophrenic is the only sane individual in a sick society (a view of the the late RD Laing) but unless they can say how they are sane and others sick and how the sickness of the others can be cured its a meaning that only the individual possesses.
It is this very private world, which no-one shares, and importantly, cannot share, that the psychotic inhabits as a delusion. The creative person with a tendency to ascribe meaning where others see none, (a analagous feature of psychosis proper), remains creative, so long as that vision is communicable.
Of course getting the psychotic to talk about their world view is a step towards shared meaning : taking medication alone just dampens an impulse and casts the individual aside into a pit.
Psychosomatic Body and Mind
[info]famulla wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 05:21 pm (UTC)
What you term is in medical a Psychosomatic Body and Mind. Leave one you are nuts. The law does not apply to these. Can we leave them out from these columns. They are good in the asylums.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Diversity
[info]manplant wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 05:44 pm (UTC)
All this proves is that for the survival of the human race, infinite diversity is essential. It is what stops us from going into a survival cul-de-sac that uniformity would bring. Some of us are not comfortable with diversity and are obsessed with trying to explain things using evolution and genetic theory (politicians). What this article tells us is that evolution is in fact devolution i.e. we are not evolving into a uniform superior specimen but actually continuing to produce humans of infinite diversity and that there is no ideal form.
Re: Diversity
[info]alchespetzer wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 06:14 pm (UTC)
"i.e. we are not evolving into a uniform superior specimen but actually continuing to produce humans of infinite diversity and that there is no ideal form."

Your over-inclusiveness seems a little misplaced, even sloppy, to me. Has it occurred to you that the evolution you mention may involve such divergent branches that the unifying term "human"--or, for that matter, any sort of unitary classification-- may no longer make sense?
Re: Diversity - [info]manplant - Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 09:31 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Diversity - [info]alchespetzer - Wednesday, 6 May 2009 at 01:34 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Diversity - [info]manplant - Thursday, 7 May 2009 at 09:44 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Diversity - [info]a4r0n_5 - Monday, 11 May 2009 at 06:45 pm (UTC) Expand
"pschotic traits"?
[info]nycartist wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 05:46 pm (UTC)
The possible link between artists and any mental illness is not proved. It puzzles me that creative people are thought to be so "different". People who are "different" are speculated about, then science is looked to for "help" to "prove" a theory. Creative people are not that different. (My spouse is a brain research scientist.) Very intelligent people are considered "different" as well.
What drives inspiration
[info]christmeal wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 06:28 pm (UTC)
No, it is not "insanity" that does this to people. That is just the word we use for things we do not understand. Every new idea sounds crazy at first. Let black people be free? Are you crazy? They will starve to death, live in squalor. They will not know how to take care of themselves. We are better off releasing them in the wild, where they belong, because their tribal mentality will surely take over, and if, save God, they ever integrate, our society will collapse in on itself, starting with them. So we better keep them herded together in their ghetto. Keep the problem localized. Do not let it spread.

Surely it is crazy to think otherwise, but we are wrong. We are always wrong about something. If you are politically correct, the trick of the day is figuring out exactly what you are wrong about, and articulating it into words that the common person can understand. This trial, you will see, bridges the gap between craziness and coherence.

It is much more complicated than that, but we must have faith. Have faith in the possibility of a beautiful order of higher justice. Even if it is false. It is only false because it is not true yet. The truth is only circumstantial. That which dies recedes into falsehood. That which is born becomes true.
Some thoughts on an interesting article.
[info]rich6408 wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 06:37 pm (UTC)
It seems plausible, but... a few points.

Firstly, there's loads of people who suffer mental distress and are not creative types. They are called phd students.

Secondly, rather than there being an evolutionary advantage to mental ill-health, it is the case that there is no competitive disadvantage to it. Let's be honest, it doesn't take too make a baby. The human reproductive drive is just not that picky.

Thirdly, we shouldn't explain away talent. Perhaps, Tony Hanncock was funny because he had naturally a good sense of humour?

Fourthly, maybe creativity leads to mental health problems rather than the other way round, as this article suggests. Paranoia requires a good imagination.

Also, to be creative, one needs to be alone to produce the work. With lack of social contact and constraint may come the excentricity associated with madness. Thus, the link between creativity and madness is due to the social condition of the worker rather than any direct causality.

Finally, we need to be cautious of 'artist-bullshit'. It is all too easy to get caught up in the idea of the tormented genius who suffers for all of us (who we in turn have to suffer). Creativity is as much about discipline as flight of fancy. What's the cliche? 90 per cent perspiration and 10 per cent inspiration. Creative types are creative because they work at it. Being mad alone won't make you a great genius.
Re: Some thoughts on an interesting article.
[info]anon_y_muse wrote:
Wednesday, 6 May 2009 at 11:45 pm (UTC)
A very thoughtful comment, thanks :)
Brian Wilson
[info]dsrtflwr wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 06:58 pm (UTC)
Brian Wilson is not a genius. He also is not mentally ill. He's screwed up because of all the recreational drug use he has indulged in during his life.
Most artists are broken
[info]crazed333 wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 07:57 pm (UTC)
I love the "I am an artist and I am normal - so are my friends". I am a physician and have also spent 42 years as a musical performer. Most (not all) creative people are nuts - thankfully so! It is the "broken" part that makes them see things in such an amazingly different light (as the article suggests). Certainly those that are so disturbed that they disrupt others' lives require medication. The rest should be left to their moderate eccentricity/insanity.

I have interviewed thousands of patients over the years and it is clear to me (yep all anecdotal evidence) that we spend millions of dollars yearly treating as illness what are normal personality traits...odd traits, but normal. How much great art and general creativity are we losing to the indiscriminate use of mood-controlling drugs? While the loss of life and function are terrible things on an individual basis, what the "crazies" leave behind is almost worth their suffering (provided they suffered at all).

From Yeats (depression from losing his family and then dying of TB himself) to Hendrix (likely a manic personality that went over the edge - I mean, look at the clothes) I grieve for their suffering but I rejoice in their creations. All hail the mildly deranged.
Living a different reality
[info]vviittaa wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 08:10 pm (UTC)
Stop listening to experts...and stop with your little boxes...we are all individuals.
I could have told you this,
[info]markbaland wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 09:20 pm (UTC)
But I kept arguing with me and myself, so we couldn't get around to it.
Jesus
[info]twitchyx wrote:
Tuesday, 5 May 2009 at 09:28 pm (UTC)
This article is such bullshit. None of these theories will ever or could ever be proven. Why do people insist every famous person throughout history whoever accomplished anything had aspergers?
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Most popular in Life & Style


Free gym pass

Get fit for summer with Fitness First gyms in London

Download a free gym pass from Fitness First today

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date