CMU School of Drama


Wednesday, December 05, 2018

Is There a Link between Creativity and Mental Illness?

Artsy: Plato and Aristotle thought about it. And like many of the matters they considered, which we still ponder now, it’s the sort of question your pompous college classmate would’ve called “eternal.”
It’s a question that’s still applicable and widely debated: Is there a link between mental illness and creativity? In other words, does suffering through some disconnection from reality confer upon the sufferer greater powers of creativity? From a psychiatric viewpoint, the answer is no, definitely not.

7 comments:

Unknown said...

This is a very carefully considered, well-written piece. It appears to be more of a meditation than a study or a call to arms, but it might be worthwhile to attempt to gather some data on mental health in the arts. There is a romanticized stereotype of the tortured artist dying young (often from drug abuse, preventable disease, or suicide), which some young people idealize and seek out. Overall, I think there is a growing emphasis on health and wellness in the arts, but it is hard to gauge the extent to which the values upheld by adults permeate the youth culture. A major problem, of course, is that atypicality is highlighted and emphasized in media, while neurotypicality is harder to see. For every ten people in the arts with excellent mental health, there may be one person with problems, but that single person may be exponentially more visible. It feeds into situations like the “who slept the least” game often played among hard working people.

Chase Trumbull said...

Unknown 4:01pm is Chase Trumbull. Last time, I promise.

Yma Hernandez-Theisen said...

Annabella Hochschild article, “The Problem with Linking Creativity and Mental Illness”, extremely interested me, just after reading the title, because this topic directly affects me. As someone who is affected by both nature and nurture when it comes to mental illness and as someone pursuing an artistic field, I’ve been interested in this idea/concept but never got to into it, thus why I’m reading Annabella’s article discussing the concept. The reason I never heavily pondered this concept, that I’ve came across on multiple occasions, was that broadness and subjectiveness of this concept. I feel its hard to rate someone’s attribute as loose as their creative ability. Annabella touches on my concern right away, as a reason not to concretely say you need to be an artist to be creative. Though I, this isn’t the case for everyone, felt as though I have gained personal growth through my experiences in mental obstacles, which indirectly affects the work I do. It has been at times very hindering to me, but I can always find a way to learn from it). One must keep in mind how complex people are when making such broad and concrete statements on how having certain traits give you an innate advantage.

Unknown said...

I think the Tortured Artist myth is very dangerous and I'm glad that this article points out the flimsy evidence that we base this on. I hate that it perpetuates this idea that a truly creative person must suffer for their art because stops creatives from seeking a balance in their lives and pushes them to pursue creating art at all costs to their mental and physical health. When we create these ideas that true Great Artists sacrificed everything for their art and that all Great Works are born out of pain, it tells someone who is creating art but also has a balanced life, stable mental health and no significant trauma that they are doing something wrong. The other harm that this myth leads to is something Hannah Gadsby talks about in her brilliant special Nanette when she discusses the story of the audience member who told her she shouldn't take her medication because she was an artist and should "let herself fell". This myth stops artists who do happen to suffer from mental illness from seeking proper treatment and medication, which leads to a vicious cycle of feeling dependent on their illness for their art.

Madeleine Evans said...

This is an interesting article. For me, it is best summed up in the paragraph regarding historical examples and the reliance of them to prove the suffering artist point. Hochschild states, "Regardless, the idea that through the mind’s ravages, inspiration may come, still adds to the artist’s mystique. We do not lack for examples of the tortured artist: one-eared Vincent van Gogh; Albrecht Dürer’s melancholia; Mark Rothko’s death in his studio. But to focus on the mythologized biographies of famous artists is shortsighted. When considering creativity and madness, we often find ourselves leaning on such anecdotes as compelling evidence; yet, given that they’re often refuted by psychiatric research, the question of whether or not there is a link remains a difficult one to answer definitively." For me this is the crux of the issue. Oh the tortured artist might have some sort of appeal, but to use historical examples of these tortured genius as evidence that greatness comes from suffering is not appropriate. We need to stop using Van Gogh or Rothko as paradigms of greatness because of their suffering. Our industry is hard enough, and honestly if we were all better compensated and supported, I can't imagine how great our art and work could be.

Maggie Q said...

For me, I look at this article a different way. Personally I would like to distinguish having a career based in the arts and “being a creative person”, It doesn’t change the outcome of the article in any way there is still zero connection, but in the article they only use examples from the career based side trying to prove that all creative people align with that. I strongly believe rocket scientists have to be highly creative as do nuclear physicists, theoretical mathematicians or teachers, doctors, lawyers, or stay at home parents. So in their studies are they including those people?. How about the artists who were amazing in the 1800’s but didn't have the marketing skills of other artists to be known today. So how do you study all of that at the same time? I believe what it comes down to is that people are inherently creative and it is difficult to study either way. One way to say it is that about 1 in 4 creative people are likely to suffer from a mental illness at some point in their life (World Health Organisation, Genova, Oct 4th). This stat is simply for the world population.

Annie Scheuermann said...

Ever since I had a concussion a few years ago I have been super into research on brain health and how your body responds your mental state. Anyone who hard line says there is not connection between creativity and mental health is being dense, there is, not always in a negative way. So often creative outlets are suggested for someone going through a mental health crisis, to focus your energy in a positive outlet that is expressive. The idea of suffering for your art is so ancient and needs to stop being a praised commitment. There is a science connected with creativity, the way your brain and body responds by releasing feel good chemicals. Often art comes out of hard times, it is often said the funniest comedians are the most sad and depressed. There is a common joy in sharing your work, which means opening up to criticism as well.