How Does Mental Illness Impact an Artist's Work?

[zoobyshoe]

Point well taken, zoob; if Michelangelo is an example for a working artist who makes a good living out of his art, at the other extreme you have artists like Van Gogh who were never seriously in it for the money -- or else, disappointed at their misfortune, which I am sure did not help with the depression. Could VVG stop working if he did not feel like it? Could he cut off an ear on a "whim"?

Van Gogh is just about completely anomalous among artists but he is taken as the industry standard. He was supported by his brother. He didn't have to paint to get that support but he painted anyway, and prolifically. He used to do two and three paintings a day. After the ear incident he spent the rest of his life in and out of asylums, and did, indeed, go through periods of weeks of being curled up in a ball staring out the window unable to paint.

 

[zoobyshoe]

There is scientific evidence that bipolar disorder is associated with creativity (e.g. 1, 2, 3). According to at least one abstract, this same pattern emerges even when considering people whose profession involves art: "Analysing psychopathology and creativity among various professions, higher rates of psychopathology, especially affective symptoms, have been found in art-related professions." (link) So it's not just an urban legend, and the idea shouldn't be killed off just because some people misunderstand it e.g. by thinking that the door to creativity is mental illness.

I wouldn't call those abstracts "scientific evidence", so much as officially noted anecdotal evidence. The first sentence of the Hungarian one is a particularly bald assertion that simply paraphrases the old saw that artists are tempermental:

"It has been known for a long time that people with salient social and artistic creativity suffer more frequently from psychiatric illnesses than the average population."

I think that whatever means you use to evaluate someone's "creativity", a psychotic person is much better equipped to get a high score. Their delusions are usually interesting: full of fantastic facts and plots and characters, and magic and conspiracy, And, hypomanic and manic bipolar people are much more likely to do and say things without regard for rules, convention, propriety, decorum, proper procedure, etc, and come out scoring high on a "creativity" scale for it. Should we call this more or less distorted behavior "creativity"?

I am aware that a lot of bipolar people are attracted to work in the arts, as well. The arts are considered "sexy" and exiting and manic people crave exitement and risk and, let's admit it, sex. Are these bipolar people any good at art, though? The ones I know personally are mediocre to poor. Their stuff doesn't even stand out as particularly creative in concept: it's kind of dull.

This issue came up on a bipolar forum where I used to post (I was there wondering about the link between epilepsy and bipolar: why do the same meds work for both?) and the bipolar posters all lamented that they had none of this famous bipolar creativity. When they were manic all they did was spend money recklessly, shoplift and steal, have promiscuous sex, talk incessantly, and get speeding tickets. I think the percentage of bipolar people who might actually be any good at some art is a very small one.

I met a bipolar woman in a Denny's one night who told me she had written 127 songs that day. I asked to see them and she said "Oh, I don't write them down I just write them in my head." Is that really creativity or just a sad delusion? (On a questionaire, though, that writing songs in her head might be written down as "often engages in composing music- VERY CREATIVE!") I suspect most of this "creativity" reported by bipolar people who claim to be engaged in creativity is really this sort of half delusional thing: people staying up four days straight writing a novel that is actually disjointed, rambling junk.

 

[hypnagogue]

I suspect you may have some veridical insight into this, but at the same time, if anyone is going on anecdotal evidence it is you. In two of the links I provided, bipolar individuals scored statistically significantly higher than healthy controls on a psychometric scale designed to assess creativity. One of those studies also included a "creative disciplines" control group as well, which also scored higher than the healthy control group, giving the scale some additional credibility. I am sure I could cull a bunch of other studies but I won't belabor the point.

 

[zoobyshoe]

In two of the links I provided, bipolar individuals scored statistically significantly higher than healthy controls on a psychometric scale designed to assess creativity.

This is what I'm questioning. How is such a thing measured? Who determines what constitutes "creativity" and how do they prevent what you and I would agree is really psychotic or nuts from registering as "creativity"? How would they distinguish Dali from a girl who "writes" 127 songs in her head in a day?

Yes, just about everything I said is anecdotal. My point isn't to convince you of anything in particular but to explain why I don't personally buy these memes about mental illness and creativity: I just don't see it borne out in the mentally ill people I meet and have talked to online.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, mental illness has a pervasive impact on just about everything a person does. The unique thing in the case of art though is that in at least some non-significant fraction of cases the link between the two might be positive, rather than neutral or negative.

I'm not sure that you could assert that there is never a positive effect on shoe tying in some non-signifigant fraction of cases of shoe tying while depressed.

There is evidence suggesting that art therapy helps alleviate symptoms of depression...

Yes.

So it's possible that for some, being in a depressed state creates motivation to create art.

Well, this manner of stating it implies the disagreeable (to me) notion that one has to suffer to create art. It implies that to make a person into an artist you have to get them and keep them depressed. This was a common notion of the Romantic era. It's not true, because I know some really good artists who are positive, upbeat people.

I would rather characterize what happens when someone gets relief from depression by doing artwork as a subset of getting relief from depression by getting mentally involved in any absorbing activity. Somewhere in the collection of assorted essays by Einstein he says the same thing about physics: something to the effect that it was a way to keep his mind occupied when he was feeling socially alienated. Some people turn to gardening for the same reason and effect, and I've already mentioned journal writing a few times.

And it should be uncontroversial that motivation boosts the quality and quantity of one's work.

If you mean it invariably boosts both, then I don't agree. I have great doubts about the quality of the 127 songs the girl wrote in one day, and Beethoven, who wrote the remarkably small number of only 9 symphonies, never-the-less made them of such awsome quality that most wouldn't trade a single one of them for all the symphonies of Hayden.

Another interesting possibility is that the relationship between creativity and mood/temperament is not direct but mediated by a third factor. For instance this study suggests that depression and creativity are both elevated by the psychological process of rumination.

This makes perfect sense to me. I think I said to Moe earlier that people given to "deep, brooding introspection" are likely to end up in art or science.

 

[rewebster]

Yes, mental illness has a pervasive impact on just about everything a person does. The unique thing in the case of art though is that in at least some non-significant fraction of cases the link between the two might be positive, rather than neutral or negative.

There is evidence suggesting that art therapy helps alleviate symptoms of depression (e.g. 1, 2,
3). So it's possible that for some, being in a depressed state creates motivation to create art. And it should be uncontroversial that motivation boosts the quality and quantity of one's work.

Another interesting possibility is that the relationship between creativity and mood/temperament is not direct but mediated by a third factor. For instance this study suggests that depression and creativity are both elevated by the psychological process of rumination.

It seems, as for most processes, 'time' has to be allotted in some way, too, for the creative process--and the more time the better it is thought, it seems, sometimes---e.g. "think tanks"--------are 'disturbed'/(creative) people allowed more "time" 'to themselves'?

 

[rewebster]

I am aware that a lot of bipolar people are attracted to work in the arts, as well. The arts are considered "sexy" and exiting and manic people crave exitement and risk and, let's admit it, sex.

Men/male artists, to some women, it seems, are considered 'the bad boys' (doing something 'different and interesting'/("not normal"); and, sometimes, bipolar people may go into the 'arts' as a form of self-therapy, in the same way that they may go into psychology/psychiatry.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Men/male artists, to some women, it seems, are considered 'the bad boys' (doing something 'different and interesting'/("not normal");

I think this is true. Given two otherwise comparable guys, women will almost always gravitate toward the artist over the CPA or mechanic, etc.

and, sometimes, bipolar people may go into the 'arts' as a form of self-therapy,

Depressed people may turn to art for its potentially therapeutic properties but it's important to remember that manic people don't have a problem with being manic and don't seek relief from it. Bipolar people attracted to the arts are almost certainly seeking potential exitement of one form or another.

in the same way that they may go into psychology/psychiatry.

I'm not aware of any bipolar people attracted to psychology/psychiatry as a profession. However it is true that bipolar people seem much more likely to inform themselves about the contents of the DSM in great detail and also to research any med they're given, than people with other diagnosis. People diagnosed as schizophrenic, for example, seem apathetic about the implications of that diagnosis.

 

[rewebster]

I'm not aware of any bipolar people attracted to psychology/psychiatry as a profession. However it is true that bipolar people seem much more likely to inform themselves about the contents of the DSM in great detail and also to research any med they're given, than people with other diagnosis. People diagnosed as schizophrenic, for example, seem apathetic about the implications of that diagnosis.

I've heard of several people over the years in psychology/psychiatry that have committed suicide---they were the ones that made the 'news'---who knows how many had 'breakdowns' and that didn't around to be known to happen,---not saying they were bi-polar as that wasn't reported though.


Some report somewhere I heard around said that 20% of the population would/will/has had a major psychotic episode --major enough to get professional help or should have gotten professional help---and another report said, if I remember right, something like 90% have had or will have an minor episode that would or should be looked at. Some of that is like the butcher telling you that his meat is good for you, too, though.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I've heard of several people over the years in psychology/psychiatry that have committed suicide---they were the ones that made the 'news'---who knows how many had 'breakdowns' and that didn't around to be known to happen,---not saying they were bi-polar as that wasn't reported though.


Some report somewhere I heard around said that 20% of the population would/will/has had a major psychotic episode --major enough to get professional help or should have gotten professional help---and another report said, if I remember right, something like 90% have had or will have an minor episode that would or should be looked at. Some of that is like the butcher telling you that his meat is good for you, too, though.

These numbers sound way too high. Depends on how they are defining all these terms, I suppose.

 

[rewebster]

It's an old study, but I wouldn't things have changed much an probably across the board (but not for certain):

"One study, for example, found 81.5 percent of the population of Manhattan, New York, to have had signs and symptoms of mental distress (Srole, 1962). "

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/chapter2/sec2_1.html


And:

"During any one-year period, up to 50 million Americans -- more than 22 percent -- suffer from a clearly diagnosable mental disorder involving a degree of incapacity that interferes with employment, attendance at school or daily life. "

http://www.friendshospitalonline.org/facts.htm


This was just a quick search (about 3 or 4 minutes worth)

-------------------------------------
"85 percent of Aussies "touched" by mental illness: report"

http://ibnnews.org/archives/archive...mental_illness_31707_4265845145477_00000.html

and its probably not just Aussies--even if you are 'sane' its around you

 

[zoobyshoe]

It's an old study, but I wouldn't things have changed much an probably across the board (but not for certain):

"One study, for example, found 81.5 percent of the population of Manhattan, New York, to have had signs and symptoms of mental distress (Srole, 1962). "

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/chapter2/sec2_1.html


And:

"During any one-year period, up to 50 million Americans -- more than 22 percent -- suffer from a clearly diagnosable mental disorder involving a degree of incapacity that interferes with employment, attendance at school or daily life. "

http://www.friendshospitalonline.org/facts.htm


This was just a quick search (about 3 or 4 minutes worth)

-------------------------------------
"85 percent of Aussies "touched" by mental illness: report"

http://ibnnews.org/archives/archive...mental_illness_31707_4265845145477_00000.html

and its probably not just Aussies--even if you are 'sane' its around you

It was your wording. A "psychotic episode", involves having some pretty severe delusions or hallucinations or both. Severe Depression is a mental illness, yes, but not considered a psychotic episode. There is, in fact, a separate diagnosis if psychosis accompanies depression: "Major Depression with Psychotic Features". The bipolar types are also not classified as "psychotic episodes". They're under the heading of "Mood Disorders". You can have a diagnosis of, say, "Bipolar I, Severe, with Psychotic Features", but that is a subset of Bipolar, not the norm. So, saying 90% of people will have a minor psychotic episode is not a correct statement of what you meant. And, as you figured out, it actually said 87% are in contact with someone who is mentally ill.

 

[rewebster]

It was your wording. A "psychotic episode", involves having some pretty severe delusions or hallucinations or both. Severe Depression is a mental illness, yes, but not considered a psychotic episode. There is, in fact, a separate diagnosis if psychosis accompanies depression: "Major Depression with Psychotic Features". The bipolar types are also not classified as "psychotic episodes". They're under the heading of "Mood Disorders". You can have a diagnosis of, say, "Bipolar I, Severe, with Psychotic Features", but that is a subset of Bipolar, not the norm. So, saying 90% of people will have a minor psychotic episode is not a correct statement of what you meant. And, as you figured out, it actually said 87% are in contact with someone who is mentally ill.

I guess it depends on how you look at it:

"Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality". Stedman's Medical Dictionary defines psychosis as "a severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social functioning."[1]

People experiencing a psychotic episode may report hallucinations or delusional beliefs (e.g., grandiose or paranoid delusions), and may exhibit personality changes and disorganized thinking. This is often accompanied by lack of insight into the unusual or bizarre nature of their behaviour, as well as difficulty with social interaction and impairment in carrying out the activities of daily living."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis

You may be thinking of an episode as a 'major breakdown' as in the first line of the second paragraph, but the second paragraph goes on to describe other possible components of a ' "psychotic" episode'.

That Aussie study was thrown in as how it effects others around those (not 'really' related as my comment behind the link states.)



http://www.coolnurse.com/mental_healthusa.htm

"The majority of Americans will, at some point in their lifetime, meet the diagnostic criteria for one or more mental disorders. "

I read someplace that the 'number' was in the high 80's % (I rounded it up).

"About one quarter (26 percent) of the general population reported symptoms sufficient for diagnosing such a disorder during the past year. Most of these disorders, however, were mild and likely to resolve without treatment."

I really didn't specify that the 'numbers' or the 'definition' was specifically about depression.

There seems to be a lot of studies on various facets of mental illness.
-----------------------------------
One thing I've read about psych 'stuff': they do a lot of generalizing

 

[Math Is Hard]

I guess it depends on how you look at it

Do you know what the DSM-IV is, rewebster?

 

[hypnagogue]

This is what I'm questioning. How is such a thing measured? Who determines what constitutes "creativity" and how do they prevent what you and I would agree is really psychotic or nuts from registering as "creativity"? How would they distinguish Dali from a girl who "writes" 127 songs in her head in a day?

You're right that trying to quantify creativity is problematic. But the same could be said of quantifying any mental attribute. A given kind of scale may not measure exactly what we want it to, it may miss certain things or mischaracterize others. No scale is going to capture perfectly the thing it intends to measure. The question though is whether a scale can offer a quantification that is on some level useful and faithful to reality, not whether it is perfect.

In a couple of the studies I linked to they measured creativity using the Barron Welsh Art Scale (BWAS). A description of the scale:

The scoring of this test is based on "like" and "dislike" responses to figures of varying complexity and symmetry that provide a comparison with preferences indicated by artists. Thirty-eight simple and/or symmetrical figures disliked by artists and 24 more complex and/or asymmetrical figures liked by artists comprise the BWAS's Dislike and Like subscales, respectively; total scores combine responses to these subscales. People whose scores are more in accord with the likes and dislikes of artists are considered as having greater creativity.

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/40/22/23

Of course a scale like this is not going to exhaustively and perfectly characterize the varieties of things we might mean when we say "creativity." But is the information it provides us useful for assessing something like what we mean by "creativity" in a quantitative way? Existing research suggests that it does.

Whatever the ultimate nature of the configuration or style of personality captured in scores on the BWAS—and the search for such an absolute may be as futile and meaningless as a search for the philosopher’s stone—there is no doubt about the convergence of our own studies as well as those cited in the appended bibliography in showing that the measures do identify creative talent, and that they do this independently of intelligence, personal soundness, gender, age, and other powerful determinants that all too often limit the utility of our assessment tools.

http://mindgarden.com/products/bwass.htm

 

[hypnagogue]

Well, this manner of stating it implies the disagreeable (to me) notion that one has to suffer to create art. It implies that to make a person into an artist you have to get them and keep them depressed. This was a common notion of the Romantic era. It's not true, because I know some really good artists who are positive, upbeat people.

Stating that for some people, depression helps artistic quality or productivity certainly does not imply that for all people, being depressed is a necessary condition for creating art. That inference is fraught with logical errors. It infers a universal claim from an existential claim, and it infers necessity from sufficiency, both of which are invalid inferences.

 

[zoobyshoe]

You're right that trying to quantify creativity is problematic. But the same could be said of quantifying any mental attribute. A given kind of scale may not measure exactly what we want it to, it may miss certain things or mischaracterize others. No scale is going to capture perfectly the thing it intends to measure. The question though is whether a scale can offer a quantification that is on some level useful and faithful to reality, not whether it is perfect.

If the scale isn't measuring exactly what you want it to and missing certain things, then you have to treat the result very tentatively and without confidence. Any list of questions might reveal something "useful" and "faithful to reality" without necessarily being what you intended to uncover. The initial task is to question and define what is meant by the term, and I really doubt they've satisfactorily done that.

In a couple of the studies I linked to they measured creativity using the Barron Welsh Art Scale (BWAS). A description of the scale:

Quote:
The scoring of this test is based on "like" and "dislike" responses to figures of varying complexity and symmetry that provide a comparison with preferences indicated by artists. Thirty-eight simple and/or symmetrical figures disliked by artists and 24 more complex and/or asymmetrical figures liked by artists comprise the BWAS's Dislike and Like subscales, respectively; total scores combine responses to these subscales. People whose scores are more in accord with the likes and dislikes of artists are considered as having greater creativity.

I think this scale is clearly a measure of a certain kind of aesthetic taste, but not creativity. I can like what Dali likes without being able to generate anything Dali-like myself, or anything Dali would enjoy, for that matter. The average art collector ought to score high on this scale as should the average art appreciator, neither of whom might also exhibit any creativity in practice. At most this scale seems to imply that if you like Michelangelo you can be assumed to be as creative as Michelangelo, which would be an outrageous claim. At least it seems to imply that if you like art you are automatically capable of producing art.

Of course a scale like this is not going to exhaustively and perfectly characterize the varieties of things we might mean when we say "creativity." But is the information it provides us useful for assessing something like what we mean by "creativity" in a quantitative way?

It might constitute a start, if nothing else: a very preliminary way to filter people out.

"Existing research suggests that it does.
Quote:
Whatever the ultimate nature of the configuration or style of personality captured in scores on the BWAS—and the search for such an absolute may be as futile and meaningless as a search for the philosopher’s stone—there is no doubt about the convergence of our own studies as well as those cited in the appended bibliography in showing that the measures do identify creative talent, and that they do this independently of intelligence, personal soundness, gender, age, and other powerful determinants that all too often limit the utility of our assessment tools.

This, to me, reads as gobbeldy-gook. After first asserting they're not sure what they've identified they suddenly assert certainty about the very subjective concept: "creative talent": very vague assertions being made in a confident tone, someone doing their best to put a positive spin on their research paper.
---
One big problem in trying to quantify anything about artists is that, upon close examination it often turns out that any two given artists are up to two very different things despite the fact they're expressing these impulses in the same medium. In the same way The US and England are characterized as two countries separated by a common language, Picasso and Norman Rockwell would have to be acknowledged as being two artists separated by a common medium: up to two extremely different things despite the commonality of canvass and oil paint.

The other problem is that creativity isn't limited to art. What makes Einstein and Feynman stand out could be convincingly characterized as their creativity, and often has been. Would they get a high score on this creativity test. They well might, I don't know, but non-artistically expressed creativity should also be taken into consideration when attempting to quantify creativity.

I see, also, a possibility for false positives for the reason I mentioned before: manic and hypomanic people sometimes indulge in shocking, unexpected behavior because they get a kick out of getting a rise out of people and for the high feeling of not being bound by convention and rules. Most bipolar people go off their meds, when they do, because they very much miss the exiting, invulnerable feeling of social freedom they have when manic. I think that kind of state of mind could easily masquerade as creativity on the kind of creativity test described here without such a person being also being able to produce any interesting artwork.

 

[rewebster]

Do you know what the DSM-IV is, rewebster?

One of it's main uses is to 'label' a person (conditions/symptoms) as a number(s)--(for easy and quick reference)

The other is to 'try' to standardize definitions of conditions/symptoms.


Do you like reading things of/in that professional field?


Most of the posts (so far) haven't been too specific and I've tried to avoid that also. If "psychotic episode" has a number, I'd be surprized. It was, to me, just another way of saying, "symptom sufficient for diagnosing a disorder" (paraphrased from that article). I'm pretty sure there's probably diagnostic code (for some of us/me) that 'feel' the 'need' to 'chat' on forums, even.

 

[rewebster]

If the scale isn't measuring exactly what you want it to and missing certain things, then you have to treat the result very tentatively and without confidence. Any list of questions might reveal something "useful" and "faithful to reality" without necessarily being what you intended to uncover. The initial task is to question and define what is meant by the term, and I really doubt they've satisfactorily done that.


I think this scale is clearly a measure of a certain kind of aesthetic taste, but not creativity. I can like what Dali likes without being able to generate anything Dali-like myself, or anything Dali would enjoy, for that matter. The average art collector ought to score high on this scale as should the average art appreciator, neither of whom might also exhibit any creativity in practice. At most this scale seems to imply that if you like Michelangelo you can be assumed to be as creative as Michelangelo, which would be an outrageous claim. At least it seems to imply that if you like art you are automatically capable of producing art.

It might constitute a start, if nothing else: a very preliminary way to filter people out.



This, to me, reads as gobbeldy-gook. After first asserting they're not sure what they've identified they suddenly assert certainty about the very subjective concept: "creative talent": very vague assertions being made in a confident tone, someone doing their best to put a positive spin on their research paper.
---
One big problem in trying to quantify anything about artists is that, upon close examination it often turns out that any two given artists are up to two very different things despite the fact they're expressing these impulses in the same medium. In the same way The US and England are characterized as two countries separated by a common language, Picasso and Norman Rockwell would have to be acknowledged as being two artists separated by a common medium: up to two extremely different things despite the commonality of canvass and oil paint.

The other problem is that creativity isn't limited to art. What makes Einstein and Feynman stand out could be convincingly characterized as their creativity, and often has been. Would they get a high score on this creativity test. They well might, I don't know, but non-artistically expressed creativity should also be taken into consideration when attempting to quantify creativity.

I see, also, a possibility for false positives for the reason I mentioned before: manic and hypomanic people sometimes indulge in shocking, unexpected behavior because they get a kick out of getting a rise out of people and for the high feeling of not being bound by convention and rules. Most bipolar people go off their meds, when they do, because they very much miss the exiting, invulnerable feeling of social freedom they have when manic. I think that kind of state of mind could easily masquerade as creativity on the kind of creativity test described here without such a person being also being able to produce any interesting artwork.

Some psychologist (somewhere) can probably get a grant to study you (or me) even--(I think they like those type of studies---)

 

[zoobyshoe]

Stating that for some people, depression helps artistic quality or productivity certainly does not imply that for all people, being depressed is a necessary condition for creating art. That inference is fraught with logical errors. It infers a universal claim from an existential claim, and it infers necessity from sufficiency, both of which are invalid inferences.

I agree it's fraught with logical errors and stipulate you wouldn't make such errors. Regardless, it was a common notion that arose in the Romantic era of art and music. Beethoven, Shubert, Schumann, and Chopin were prime examples: Beethovens greatness is often laid to the suffering of his increasing deafness, Shubert contracted syphillis and went insane, Schumann suffered from some kind of indeterminate mental illness and was suicidal, Chopin suffered for years from consumption.

Goethe extended necessary artistic suffering to unrequited love in his well known novel The Sorrows of Young Werther:

"The novel is in the form of a series of letters from Werther to his brother Wilhelm detailing his love for Lotte (Charlotte S.) despite her bethrothal and subsequent marriage to Albert. She has eight brothers and sisters and promised her deceased mother to marry Albert. He is a sensitive artist, poet, and lover of nature and Homer. He exhibits increasing obsession over this unrequited love and with thoughts of death and suicide, and is emotionally ill-equipped to get on with his life...blah, blah, blah."

http://mcgoodwin.net/pages/otherbooks/jg_werther.html

Written when Goethe was 24 based on his unsuccessful love interest in Charlotte Buff (they met in spring and summer 1772 in Wetzlar, near Frankfurt; she married Christian Kestner April 1773), a subsequent unsuccessful love-interest in Maximiliane von La Roche, and also based partly on the suicide of Wilhelm Jerusalem in October 1772 (who despaired of unsuccessful love with Elisabeth Herd, and borrowed Kestner's pistols to accomplish the deed.) It incorporates the "proto-Romantic" cult of the genius exempt from the customary rules and judgements characteristic of the Sturm und Drang period, coupled with sentimental melancholy sensitivity known as Empfindsamkeit.

In googling Goethe quotes on the subject of suffering I find:

"A great artist... must be shaken by the naked truths that will not be comforted. This divine discontent, this disequilibrium, this state of inner tension is the source of artistic energy. (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)"

I think this whole thing later culminated in Van Gogh who represents the ultimate suffering artist to many, and there is, indeed, a meme to the effect that great artists must suffer.

Personally, I can't draw and suffer at the same time.

 

[zoobyshoe]

One of it's main uses is to 'label' a person (conditions/symptoms) as a number(s)--(for easy and quick reference)

The other is to 'try' to standardize definitions of conditions/symptoms.


Are you in that professional field?


Most of the posts (so far) haven't been too specific and I've tried to avoid that also. If "psychotic episode" has a number, I'd be surprized. It was, to me, just another way of saying, "symptom sufficient for diagnosing a disorder" (paraphrased from that article). I'm pretty sure there's probably diagnostic code (for some of us/me) that 'feel' the 'need' to 'chat' on forums, even.

The DSM is the handbook for professionals in the Psychiatric Field. The criteria it gives for psychosis are one or more of the following: delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech (i.e.frequent derailment or incoherence), or grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior. Psychosis is distinct from mental illness; not all mental illness includes psychosis.

We here at PF let the DSM have dibs on all such definitions.

 

[rewebster]

"(i.e.frequent derailment...)"


hmmm...

 

[hc_17]

"Can't be bothered"? If you're not going to try and get a real sampling of real working artists then you might as well be writing fiction.



I don't understand why you posted here at all. There are plenty of Art forums on the web.

Actually i have gotten a real sampling of real artists work, but the only one alive, who i can interview, i already have. If i have to look for other artists i will have to change my whole brief which i have already handed it in, and its been marked. I only needed one artist to interview, which i have done.

Yes there is, which i am on 3 already, but i also wanted a wide range of answers, not just from artists, its interesting to find out what non artists think of the matter, hint why I am posting on a physics forum.

And if your critiscing my research methods and think its stupid, why did you come on this thread and reply at all?

 

[zoobyshoe]

"(i.e.frequent derailment...)"


hmmm...

What's the problem?

 

[moe darklight]

Psychology is in many ways unlike other sciences, where the largest possible sample, and therefore most general observations, yields the best results. Due to the complexity of the subject, in some cases it is better to observe the development and behaviors of a small sample (or even one sample).

Many of the advances of Freud himself were based on observing a patient for a long time. There are a lot of things that can only be learned this way, and not through collecting the data of large samples.

Which is why I asked what kinds of observations you are looking for. If you are doing research about the general correlation between mental illnesses and art, this is not the best way to do it; you'll need a much larger sample. But if you are looking for specifics (what drives a depressed person to produce art, etc.) then a smaller sample is indeed better than a large one.

---

(to that comment someone made a while ago)

Saying that it's not important to differentiate between specific mental illnesses is ridiculous. Saying that a psychosis is just like a neurosis or a depression, is like saying that a cold is pretty much the same thing as a cancer. Just because diagnosis of mental illnesses is a bit tricky, it doesn't mean that differentiations is not important, it only means that we don't (yet) fully understand the mind and that it's important to keep doing research.

Extrapolating "psychosis" from "mental illness" is ridiculous!

I have ADD, a mild dyscalculia, and a tendency to depression and panic attacks. Those are very specific symptoms.— I'm not psychotic! I don't see things or believe that Captain America talks to me through the white noise of the radio. You can't generalize mental disorders that way.

 

[hypnagogue]

I think this scale is clearly a measure of a certain kind of aesthetic taste, but not creativity.

That's what it seems like on first glance. It might seem surprising that a scale like this could be a legitimate measure of creativity in some sense. But psychology is replete with surprises. It can't be rejected out of hand without considering the research that has investigated the scale and its uses.

I admit that I am not well read on the BWAS myself. But barring an in-depth review of the literature, if I must judge the merits of the scale either from its prima facie conceptual plausibility, or from the judgment of numerous researchers who are experienced and knowledgeable in the background of the scale and the findings associated with it, I will trust the latter, and I will not be impressed with refutations of the scale that rely only on the former.

 

[zoobyshoe]

And if your critiscing my research methods and think its stupid, why did you come on this thread and reply at all?

To say as much. It is not at all clear to me what kind of academically pertinent answers you expect to get by soliciting random opinions about this. I think you should be reading biographies of artists and also researching mental illness in general.

 

[hc_17]

To say as much. It is not at all clear to me what kind of academically pertinent answers you expect to get by soliciting random opinions about this. I think you should be reading biographies of artists and also researching mental illness in general.

i have been actually, i just wanted some peoples opinions on the matter, the whole project isn't about peoples opinions, but its a very helpful thing to have, I've already had 3 months for this and have done a large amount of research in artists biographies and researching mental health. Although to get high marks and to create a successful project i have to do more than that, i have visited various art museums, interviewed an artist, compared artists work and wanted some people opinions on artists and mental health.I thought some people might be kind enough to share their opinions which most people have been, and i thank them for that.

 

[zoobyshoe]

That's what it seems like on first glance. It might seem surprising that a scale like this could be a legitimate measure of creativity in some sense. But psychology is replete with surprises. It can't be rejected out of hand without considering the research that has investigated the scale and its uses.

I admit that I am not well read on the BWAS myself. But barring an in-depth review of the literature, if I must judge the merits of the scale either from its prima facie conceptual plausibility, or from the judgment of numerous researchers who are experienced and knowledgeable in the background of the scale and the findings associated with it, I will trust the latter, and I will not be impressed with refutations of the scale that rely only on the former.

Appeal to authority?

 

[zoobyshoe]

i have been actually, i just wanted some peoples opinions on the matter, the whole project isn't about peoples opinions, but its a very helpful thing to have, ...

This is the thing that's got me: how is it possibly helpful?