The information that I came up with about depression for the Artsy Asylum blog was helpful for those who want to have a better idea what it looks like - but it still leaves me wondering if creative people are just plain destined to experience it come hell or high water.Arnold Ludwig wondered the same thing. Lucky for us, he didn't get distracted from Psychology and swept up in clay (you can probably guess who did that).
As a result he's now a professor, and a researcher at the University of Kentucky Medical Center.
Also an MD - so he's just the guy to find out more about this.
And he did! In fact, it was a study of 1004 men and women over the span of 10-years. His group was made up of a wide variety of accomplished people in just as wide a variety of professions, including art, music, science, business, politics, and sports.
In the end, he found:
- between 59 and 77 percent of the artists, writers, and musicians suffered mental illness especially "mood disorders"
- compared to just 18 to 29 percent in the less artistic professionals
Time for me to say "Bingo" again.
Other studies have shown higher rates of depression in creative people too, the differences in various studies only being in the percentage gaps.
How depressing.
So could we look on the bright side and connect the two saying that having a mental illness make people more creative?
Our Doctor Ludwig thinks not - or not exactly - in The price of Greatness: Resolving the Creativity and Madness Controversy, saying
"Mental illness is not the price people pay for their creative gifts... creative people who are mentally ill find themselves, almost by default, in the arts rather than in business or the other sciences."
Ah - so we're in creative fields because people will put up with our foibles because we are artists?
I need to read more - and listen to other opinions - before I accept that on the face of it. Really, what do you think?
If you want to dip your toe into the wealth of information out there in the brain-pool, Kay Redfield Jamison, professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, addresses these questions in her book, Touched with Fire. And there's plenty more where those came from. you might want to look at:


Comments: 47
Creatively Yrs,
KC
Monica - OK, it's up on your group & I appreciate the feature!
I suppose that my point is that there could very well be biochemical causation in not just depression and other mood disorders but at the same time the same chemicals may influence our outlook in an artistic sense as well. Stranger things could happen.
I don't argue that all artists are mentally off-kilter in some way - at least in a negative sense. But I do think it's worth taking a deeper look at how our chemistry may or may not play a part in our creativity and / or our choice of vocation.
Lots to think about, don't you agree?
I can't bring myself to believe that everyone who ever took an art class with me - not to mention FROM me - is or was mentally ill. The whole issue becomes a slippery slope somewhere along the way.
I think there are also factors to be considered that could have skewed the study a bit. Namely that people in the arts may be a bit more in tune with their emotions and therefore more open to admitting they have a mental illness. It is also less looked down upon in the arts - often it is even considered a plus to a point.
In my article, Mental Illness and Creativity – What's Up With That? , Ted Turner is listed amongst a group of famous bipolar people. He is a good example of someone in the business world who has mental illness and has succeeded - but I also think he is very creative. Perhaps not in the art sense, but he has proven himself a creative genius in the media industry. Does it have anything to do with his mental illness? Who knows?
(1) How is creativity being defined? An interesting study would be to examine people who are NOT creative, if it's possible to find any. Isn't the cook inspired to create a new version of apple pie, or the homemaker decorating her house, exercising creativity? Is some special definition of "artistic creativity" what's being discussed, and if so, how would one define this? Is scientific creativity or business creativity or political creativity the same thing as "artistic creativity?" If not, how do they differ?
(2) What's art? There are so many fields of art, each operating on so many levels, that a simplistic definition of "art" for the purpose of setting up an experiment may be extremely misleading. Are all the people working in all the arts, from painting to poetry to music to theater, for example, inclined to suffer depression? Could the psychological requirements for becoming a performing artist be different from those for becoming a "creative" artist? Different for amateurs and for professionals?
(3) Who's an artist/ It's especially important to define this clearly and include the definition being used when reporting one's research. Who's being included in the study? Artists earning at least $50,000 a year through their work? Professionals regardless of their level of financial success? Art students who want to become artists? Trained artists or self-defined artists? In which field? In how many fields? What role does the aesthetic quality of the art of the participants play in their selection? Any role? None? Who decides?
(4) How is depression being defined for the purpose of the study? There are several different kinds of depression.
(5) How many people are included in the study -- and what are the controls being used? Scientific experiments have very definite requirements, especially sample size and the use of a system of controls. If there's too small a sample, for example, statistical analysis isn't very accurate.
Unless these questions are clearly asked and answered by a particular study, we can't take it for granted that the study has much objective value. It's important to take a hard look at the criteria used and the design of experiments in any field of science.
I don't think the average person really takes a hard look at who they are, and what they really believe on that constant a basis, and is then asked to exhibit and defend them to people they have never met. These new thoughts and questions coming at sucha regular basis can be jarring, and the brain needs time to sort things out.
Again, I have never researched any of this, but it seems like the above could have a hand (big or small) in why so many artists (or creative folk) have depression symptoms.
I guess this odd clustering factor may explain how my husband and I (Bill and Susan) had dear friends for many years who were also a couple named Bill and Susan.
Ooooh, let's get a grant and research it! Now that's what I call fun.
And do you think it explain how in our family of six we have 3 clusters wherein lie a number of holidays?
Saggitarius: Halloween and 2 birthdays - Oct 31 & Nov 6
Aquarius: Valentines day and 2 birthdays- Frbruary 10
Virgo: Labor Day and 2 birthdays - September 1 and 11
I guess this is where the spooky music should start playing.
cheerz!
I've been clinically depressed most of my life, and my brother and parents were as well. My father was a writer and philosopher. My brother is taking a hiatus from his job as a newspaper editor to write a novel. I've been in and out of publishing for four decades. All I can say is, "Praise the Lord, and pass the Prozac!"
Ive always known that the majority of artsists and creative people are stigmatized with being mentally ill. Im bipolar and therefore I am...I also think that we are highly intellegent people who are categorized as "mentally ill" because the mainstrema just doesnt get how our minds work, how deep we can get and how far our creativity stretches. At times I feel blessed to be mentally ill, but when im severley depresed well you know the rest...My creativity is a gift, as well as all the other stigmatized writers of mental illness on gather, and the planet so let the public do their research as we already know what they have yet to discover.
Lauri
His website is The Painters' Keys.
Every so often some researcher will publish fresh info on the
mental or physical problems of creative folks. The general
implication of some of this stuff is that you have to be just a
wee bit sick in order to be creative. They often show that many
historic artists had something wrong with them. The latest
outbreak comes from clinical pathologist Dr. Paul Wolf of the
University of California. He cites that illnesses, rather than
being obstacles, can be the paths to genius. He cites the likes
of Einstein, Warhol, Newton, Cezanne, Goya, Michelangelo,
Turner and Berlioz. According to Wolf these folks suffered
varying degrees of depression, autism, myopia, anxiety, chronic
pain, gout, stroke and dementia.
Another recent outbreak has to do with sight. According to John
Morley of the St. Louis School of Medicine in Missouri, the
presence of cataracts leads to Impressionism. Citing Monet,
Renoir and Cassatt, he implies that eye problems helped them to
paint the way they did. Cezanne is mentioned for a diabetic
condition that caused the colour blindness that shows in his
work. Van Gogh's probable epilepsy spurred on his hallucinatory
imagery--the fuzz and swirls around the stars in "Starry
Night." Edvard Munch had "floaters," that also floated around
in his paintings. Michelangelo's manic depression, now reverse
engineered by the experts, affected the way he saw
things--according to Morley you can tell by the sad figures on
the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.
Monday morning quarterbacking aside, what about the others who
pioneered Impressionism without benefit of cataracts? Gauguin,
Bazille, Sisley, Pissarro, Degas, Morisot, Seurat and Signac
didn't have cataracts that I know of. As a matter of fact, what
about many of my friends who don't appear to have anything
wrong with them at all, but still find it within themselves to
create magnificently and with originality? Actually, it's
possible that the clear-sighted individuals with no known
diseases may be the ones who are doing most of the good stuff.
Historically speaking, we artists have been through a hundred
years where "artist" has been aligned with "nut case." It
hasn't always been so. I, for one, am working to have this
current connection declared null and void. It's always struck
me that the artists who I admire are some of the healthiest
folks I know--physically, and yep, mentally. I could be wrong,
of course, and the thought of it makes me depressed.
Best regards,
Robert
PS: "Had better treatments been available to certain artists of
the past, they might not have found their inspiration." (Dr.
Paul Wolf)
Esoterica: At Oxford University, Ioan James has a book in
progress on Asperger's Syndrome, a form of autism. James argues
that the obsessive and repetitious behavior often associated
with autism has had a positive result for about twenty
successful creators he has studied. "Perseverance,
perfectionism, disregard for social conventions and the
opinions of others could be seen as a prerequisite for
creativity, and these are also behaviors associated with
Asperger's." I'm happy to report that virtues such as
perseverance, perfectionism, and disregard for social
convention can also be learned and are frequently self-taught.
I've also wondered if the chemical imbalances in those with mood disorders might also make them more prone to a creative bent. (I'm a writer who has major depression.)
I personally believe that most of the United States population has some form of mental illness.
As for myself I have extreme mood swings...I hear voices and occasionally I have visits from angels....All which has been a great avenue for writing.lol I am a happy nut.
When I took my medication as prescribed all of my creativity went into hibernation. The side effects are so wicked with most of the psychotropic drugs they have out. I have a case manager who helps me navigate through this world with as much grace and dignity as possible. My creativity can be borderline wacky at times. Nonetheless I am creating.
I have met a lot of sick people during my stints in State Mental Hospitals. And the thing that jumped out at me at every meeting of my mentally ill comrades was.....we didnt have the right stuff to buffer. For what ever reason we/I couldn't ward off the vibes around us. Like a sponge I soak up all the energy that is around me. And trust me, it's not always good energy.Maybe that could be some of the reason that the creative abundance the mentally ill have, no matter how slight, is a way out. A way to cope with that which we can not deal with or understand. Whew..
I am new on Gather, and I think I am in the right group for this reply. I did notice a lot of writers get pretty ticked off if one doesnt stay within the certain groups arena. So..I apologize if I goofed and I am in the wrong place.
And again...Thanks Susan. So informed and put together quiet well.
I think doctors like to drug people up. I worked with people who were diagnosed because of what they said. (I did not witness any unusual behavior).
Personally, I think creative people are just plain...misunderstood. I am also of the opinion that other people who can not perform in the Arts, are possibly jealous. Hence, "oh, he can paint because he is crazy." It makes them feel better about themselves.
I can not paint. I can not draw. I write. Writing for me is part of who I am. Does that make me crazy? I don't know. I get anxious, and I get depressed. Good subject!!!!
Just a note for those who have mental inbalances, etc--remember I'll bet the creativity is there, it may be the support, self-confidence and positive encouragement that is missing--Just my thoughts. dorry
One factor that I can't help wondering about: there is this myth that drinking and creativity go together and alcohol is a depressant. So where does that factor in?
Great piece!
;)