Troubled Lives: Artists

[lovcom_photo]

It seems that many successful artists have had very troubled lives. Often

living really messing existences. Diane Arbus comes to mind, as does Georgia

O'Keeffe. Ansel Adams seemed to live a normal sane life, even as he loved to

party. HCB seemed sane but strangely eccentric. Alfred Steiglitz often had

messy relationships with females. In literature Hemingway was manic-

depressive, and like Arbus, committed suicide. Paul Strand had a messy life as

well, but I don't sense he was insane.

 

Do you think mental/emotional illness adds to the quality of one's art?

Causing it to stand out? Could it be artists are a mirror of the society they

lived in? Is having a screwed up life a prerequisite to creating monumental

work? Could one having a fairly normal existence, wholesome mental state of

mind make great art?

 

I know a wedding photographer in Phoenix who has been doing it for 8 years.

Since his messy divorce two years ago (and still raging), his work has greatly

improved...I mean he does most amazing work, especially when comparing his work

now against what he did just 4 years ago. I wonder if there is a connection

between the improvement of his work, and the dissolution of his personal life.

[pico]

First, a mental experiment: consider all the people with messy lives - what is the

frequency of artistic endeavor among the lot? A fraction of a percent. Successes among

that fracion is another fraction of a percent. There is no corelation.

 

Exceptional behavior and lifestyles made good copy.

 

What other artists do we know that led happy, straightforward lives?

 

How about Marcel Duchamp? We can continue the list and go on endlessly.

[phyrpowr]

Wouldn't go so far as to call it illness, but an artist is oftimes a driven person, who has to produce art at the expense of other things, like personal relationships. With a touch of perfectionism thrown in, to make sure he's never satisfied. And a conviction he's dead "right" in what he's doing, AND YOU NEED TO SEE THAT. We're not talking about well rounded folks here. Tanslates into tycoon types and politicians too

 

BTW, read the biography, not the autobiography of Adams: a genial outgoing fellow, whose wife only barely tolerated him, and whose son wouldn't stay at his deathbed

[d_gillespie]

Focus, Passion, dedication. The drive in some is seem as consuming, almost frightening to those outside. It does not require an illness or defect to reach certain levels of focus that many artist require to produce their work. It can be a curse or a gift depending on the individual and their circumstances. I have worked with several people who have both a creative spirit as well as a diagnosed mental illness. I can assure those whom I know would trade their profound creativity for a healthy mental state - in a second.

 

Absolutely, without question a person can create transcendent works with what you call a wholesome mental state. I am not sure what a "screwed up" life is, since it is fairly difficult to define a universal idea of normal.

 

Some have written that the absence of relationships can afford some more time to devote to a passion, it can also give someone drive to prove their worth independent of others.

[b_hall1]

It's probably more significant to look at an environment of what art is supported and what art is not supported...and thus who is an artist and who is not.

 

Consider 1920's Paris after WWI. Large artist colonies were influenced by famous central mentors...who represented something not articulated. It was like a book was written but then not supported or published. Then the author searches in agony among the society as to what is wrong with the book. If the author should find suggested elements to add to the book then the book is supported. And the book "The Sun Also Rises" can show both the actual artistic environment and possibly be a work with elements added! (There are some recent extreme movie interpretations of that book...not to mention recent extreme movie interpretations of works like "Hamlet".)

 

So a famous art could have two versions. One version as originaly envisioned by the artist and then another version with suggested elements added by the artist.

 

Consider the Lake Wobegon books. They went unpublished for many years. Why ? Probably because they portray people (even odd people) with an inner strength, resolve, and consistency that does not seem possible to those who study psychology.

 

Here's a NY times review:

 

"The fictions are typical Keillor, bittersweet tales of ordinary folks that remind us that nobody is ordinary. The title story chronicles the marital adventures of Willa and Earl, Minnesota residents who are invaded by a reporter for People magazine named Blair Hague. Blair lives with them and writes a piece convincing Willa that her marriage is a disaster and her husband ''often personally repulsive.'' Willa becomes a celebrity. She does the talk show circuit, sells movie and book rights about the horrors of married life, is a New York cocktail party sensation - and returns home to Earl and her small town. No apologies asked, none given. Life resumes as before."

 

Of course in photography A Adams would be a Lake Wobegon type of person ?

 

And I would criticize Eggleston for taking out-there photos of uninteresting subjects believing that it is possible to take out-there photos of interesting subjects.

 

But many of the famous artistic photographers persued bizzare subjects...and thus have the required elements in their work.

 

Of course we have famous journalistic photographers as well...

[pics]

I'm not sure artist (photographers) are unique in this regard. There are brilliant people in all walks of life (science, politics, etc.) who have lead troubled lives. The idea of the troubled/disturbed but brilliant artist seems very romantic, but the life of most successful artists is really just a microcosm of the rest of society. Everyone's efforts in life are shaped by their struggles and internal conflicts.

[lovcom_photo]

F. Scott Fitzgerald and his looney wife Zelda come to mind....nice responses.

[nomade]

"I wonder if there is a connection between the improvement of his work, and the dissolution of his personal life."

 

A kick in the ass equals two steps forward.

 

A divorce is not (necessarily) equal to 'dissolution of (his) personal life'. :-)

[beeman458]

"Could it be artists are a mirror of the society they lived in?"

 

In the creative aspect of art, there are two things you can't teach at University, drug use and insanity.

 

With that in mind, many of the creative notables had mental and drug problems. What I think you're seeing is the product of a socially detached mind and what happens to the thought process when you're detached from reality. And I'm not going waste bandwidth on immature arguments as to "What's reality?" and all the other psych 101 arguments.

 

I'm not condemming in my above comments as I'm only making note of what my research has revealed to me. YMMV.

[pics]

"With that in mind, many of the creative notables had mental and drug problems."

 

 

Do you have any statistical evidence that supports this or is this simply a personal theory? I don't doubt that some did anymore than I don't doubt that some people in all walks of life had such issues. What I'm trying to say is that it seems to be in vogue to try and look for bizarre mental or social patterns in talented artist as a reason to explain their works. I believe that someone who is succesful as an artist or photographer is success predominatly because of talent. There are multitudes of people out there who have mental and drug problems who are treading water and are not productive or artistic in any sense of the word. Therefore I'm not sure you can label such things as the driving force behind a creative individual.

[beeman458]

"Do you have any statistical evidence that supports this or is this simply a personal theory?"

 

I researched the question out of personal interest so I don't have a hard statistical list. The list is surprisingly long, deep and wide in regard to all the arts, not just photography. The more contemporary photographic notable bios you look deeply into, the more surprised you'll be.

 

A lot has to do with lack of religious values as well. Make note of the term Progressive Humanist. Make note of the notables in the 20's, Surrealism, Andre Breton and the Mexico City, Berlin, Paris, NYC connection of the time period, the influences and their connection to the Stalinist lead Communist party. All these point are cogent as this is where the contemporary influences both coalesced and sprang forth like an artisian spring.

 

None of my above is an indictment as my comments are strictly opinions bases upon my research into the bios of many photographers, ancillary artists of the time from whence their mentoring influences came from.

[beeman458]

"Therefore I'm not sure you can label such things as the driving force behind a creative individual."

 

After what I've read, I feel both comfortable writing what I have to say in an unsupported manner as I've too many times posted names, dates and links to support this contention in this forum and have no desire to do so again. Believe, don't believe or do some intense research over the next coupld of years on the matter as I did.

 

The question was asked, I responded. I wasn't impressed with what I found but I do understand much better the creative process. Your free choice what you choose to do with what I have to share.

[pics]

Thomas, I welcome your thoughts on the matter and hopefully I didn't sound combative in my posting. I don't doubt that you were able to find extensive biographical data on artists who dealt with numerous troubles throughout their lives. What I don't totally buy is the idea that such issues are more prevalent in successful artists anymore than they are prevalent in successful businessmen, political figures, scientists, inventors, athletes, etc. etc. A creative and innovative mind is not limited to those that pursue the arts of course. Furthermore I don't think the level of creativity one possesses is related in any direct manner to the level of mental anguish or personal troubles they have experienced throughout their lives. If you were able to research the lives of the millions of people who were not successful in the arts and were not good photographers I imagine you may find that a comparable percentage led troubled or disturbed lives as well.

[g_silver3]

I would agree with Daniel..While I have never researched mental illness by occupation I believe that all occupations and walks of life have their sadness and difficulties..I do come into contact with people who suffer depression (not regularly) and have never noticed any occupational similarities. I have noticed that a high percentage suffer from substance abuse problems..I don't know any artist but I do know a few successful photographers (artist's if you wish them to be that) and all of them are functional normal folks. Of course my limited exposure to artists and photographers would not make a very good sampling..

[beeman458]

As I wrote, my research was limited to "notables."

 

I always like to write, "The Web is a terrible thing to waste." I spent years researching my statement, not a few bored hours on a Sunday evening.

 

"A creative and innovative mind is not limited to those that pursue the arts of course."

 

The OP's question, dealt with art, not other pursuits. My research, dealt with the arts and the well spring of creativity within the arts, not business, sports or otherwise.

 

"Furthermore I don't think the level of creativity one possesses is related in any direct manner to the level of mental anguish or personal troubles they have experienced throughout their lives."

 

You're welcome to think whatever you want as my stated opinion is based upon research and my comment dealt with the OP's question. I'm not going debate you on any level. You're welcome to do the same as I did. Research and draw your own conclusions based upon your personal efforts; if you care to. I focused on "notables" and only "notables" as that was my point of curiosity for I was about a better understanding of the creative process, not drug use or psychological stability. I had no preconceived notions, ax to grind or chip on my shoulder. I only wanted to understand the creative process and this is what I discovered and now share.

 

"...I imagine you may find that a comparable percentage led troubled or disturbed lives as well."

 

You keep missing my stated point, I was all about learning about the creative process and this was one of the points which kept jumping off the pages. I just made note, and when I made note, I dug deeper and was surprised at what I found. After a while, it became hard not to notice what I'm writing about.

 

Take some time to start digging deep into these folks (contemporary notables, last hundred and twenty years) bios above the superficial, this is where they went to school, worked and played. Look into their personal lives/politics, who they hung with and where they partied. You'll be surprised what comes to the surface, fairly consistently, time, after time, after time.

 

I'm not here to debate, just sharing as the OP asked a question. Yes my comment on the surface will seem controversial, unless you take the time to verify my comments and then it'll take on more truth.

 

Do the research as I think you'll find it fun.

[mrstubbs]

If being divorced, depressed, emotionaly unstable and suicidal make me an artist, then I would prefer to be just a poor struggling photographer thanks.

 

Always look on the briii...ght side of life...da dum..da da da da da dum!...

[beeman458]

"I don't know any artist but I do know a few successful photographers (artist's if you wish them to be that) and all of them are functional normal folks."

 

I'm not writing about the likes of some dood who decided to open up a portrait shop or do weddings. I'm writing about "notables." People who set the stage the next generation follows. People who push the envelope of ideas, not somebody who wallows in the day-to-day meanderings of life, makes a few bucks and has a couple of beers each night with dinner, raises their children to go to college and sees the wife off to work each morning.

 

Dali, Eggleston, Man Ray, Oscar Wilde, Nietzsche, Nan Goldin, Diane Arbus, Serrano and Hemmingway as a few examples.

 

http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/features/fineman/fineman12-12-96.asp

 

I'll not do the full of the research for you, Put your backs into it laddies. The Web is a terrible thing to waste. If you care, use your search enging to learn about who the notables are. Learn about their politics, their personal lives. Learn why they ended up the way they did. Don't just look at their pictures. Read what they have to say in interviews, writings or otherwise.

[g_silver3]

"""I'm not writing about the likes of some dood who decided to open up a portrait shop or do weddings. I'm writing about "notables."

 

I'm sorry, I wasn't making any reference to anything you wrote. Isn't the topic set by Dan Lovell. Dan dedicated an entire paragraph to a wedding photographer..The wedding photographer would be "some dood" whatever that is..

 

I wonder if it is a requirement to be a "Lad"

[d_gillespie]

Both creative and critical people tend to be more aware of the exceptions rather than the "norms". I submit that when attempting research the choice should be made to include as many normal parameters as negative. List of photographers who did not take illicit drugs or photographers with stable home lives as well as troubled, twisted, starving artists. We can more easily see the errors in a large photograph and miss entirely the purity of the presented scene.

 

Here at PN you can run through thousands of images read the critiques to see the negative comments. Do we take as seriously the comment that an image is stunning with the same validity as a detailed comment on the underexposed right side of the model's face? It seems we see the exceptions.

 

Do any of us remember the name of the police officer shot in the movie theater in Dallas while authorities searched for JFK's killer? We all remember Lee Harvey's middle name, I'll bet.

 

To me it does not seem a possible or even a fair evaluation to base an opinion on those exceptional stories as having more value, input or influence over the creative process on those "Notable" photographers if it does not include a similar percentage of the general population who are not affected by those forces.

 

Is there a reliable estimate of the percentage of photographers (for this discussions sake) who fall into the OP's category? If we can not establish that there exists a larger percentage )thanthe general population) based on an agreed model then we can simple enjoy the anecdotal discussions here for what they are - personal opinions and observations into the lives of the exceptions.

[beeman458]

"Isn't the topic set by Dan Lovell. Dan dedicated an entire paragraph to a wedding photographer..The wedding photographer would be "some dood" whatever that is.."

 

Let's see what's written in the first paragraphy.

 

"It seems that many successful artists have had very troubled lives. Often living really messing existences. Diane Arbus comes to mind, as does Georgia O'Keeffe. Ansel Adams seemed to live a normal sane life, even as he loved to party. HCB seemed sane but strangely eccentric. Alfred Steiglitz often had messy relationships with females. In literature Hemingway was manic- depressive, and like Arbus, committed suicide. Paul Strand had a messy life as well, but I don't sense he was insane."

 

Then he followed up with the second and third paragraphy.

 

Context is the first thing to go online.

 

Research (facts), don't research (conjecture); free choice.

 

Wishing you well with what ever world you choose to live in.

[andy_laycock]

As far as photography goes I find that normal, well-adjusted people tend to produce safe, standard photographs (ie camera clubs). This is a very general statement of course and I'm sure everyone can think of exceptions. On the other hand, dysfunctional artists seem to produce unique and memorable art. I believe that the so-called 'tortured artist' has a much larger mental repetoire to work with.

[beeman458]

"On the other hand, dysfunctional artists seem to produce unique and memorable art."

 

Jimmy, Janis and Jim.

 

Jimmy:

 

http://www.hotshotdigital.com/WellAlwaysRemember/JimiHendrixBio.html

 

Janis:

 

http://www.officialjanis.com/bio.html

 

Jim:

 

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/entertainers/music/jim-morrison/

[g_silver3]

Like I said previous, I was not responding to your post. I was responding to the original post and the post's of others in a global sense. It is easy to see that you feel that everyone out there that is male should focus on your babbling commentary.

 

"Wishing you well with what ever world you choose to live in"

 

I have a feeling your world is one of loneliness. I'm sorry for you.

[beeman458]

Here's an interesting read on the matter.

 

http://beingtheremag.com/content/0505/artdrugs.html

 

Warhol, Picasso, Diego Rivera.

 

The front runners, not the also rans.

[beeman458]

"I have a feeling your world is one of loneliness. I'm sorry for you."

 

Your above is called avoidency. Don't explore the premise of the first sentence.

 

"It seems that many successful artists have had very troubled lives."

 

Ignore the first sentence of the second paragraph.

 

"Do you think mental/emotional illness adds to the quality of one's art?"

 

Don't look further beneath the covers then your own convictions.

 

Instead of griding on me (That's all you got?), take some time out of your efforts to "put me in my place" through your efforts to belittle me and use this energy productively via the search engine to expand your thinking. Explore. Learn. Expand your vision beyond today's horizons.

 

Again, it's all free choice as to what kind of world we choose to live in. The Web is one of the most blessed events to take place in "all" the history of humanity because of it's democratic nature and yet folks won't take the time to make benefit of the search function for the purpose of expanding their thinking.

 

The Web is today's "Library of Alexandria." and folks won't use it as such. Go figure.

 

http://www.crystalinks.com/libraryofalexandria.html

 

Siiiiigh!