Does suffering enhance [photographic] creativity?

[albert_richardson1]

<p>Plenty of people suffer without creating anything at all someone else would care to see. Van Gogh was not the only patient in the asylum. In fact, he was not the only resident of the town he died in. Why don't we know anything about his next door neighbor? Or the butcher? ... etc.</p>

<p>There must be something else going on. We have to judge creativity by the works it produces. I think it is impossible to clearly identify the exact substance behind every decision that goes into making a finished work. It's a fun diversion perhaps to pretend that we can understand what is in another person's mind, but pointless. </p>

<p>Of course the suffering this thread produced in me did stimulate these creative remarks! </p>

[john_macpherson]

<blockquote>

<p>It's a fun diversion perhaps to pretend that we can understand what is in another person's mind, but pointless. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>We dont have to understand it to appreciate that something is at work in certain ill people that is not necessarily going on in the minds of 'ordinary' people. I've worked professionally in the field of disability for over 20 years (as well as being a professional photographer) and been involved in numerous art projects, working closely with art therapists and psychologists, and mentally ill or seriously disturbed people.</p>

<p>Some of the work I've seen produced by very ill institutionalised people has been quite remarkable. Some such as a series of grossly overworked, obsessionally scribbled archetypes were really disturbing simply to look at as a viewer, but considered as glimpses of the inner working of the artist, were not pointless but really useful in providing some insight, which informed the ongoing psychological treatment and assistance offered. But they also possessed a remarkable beauty and depth that was palpable.</p>

<p>Another 'unusual' man I worked with created wonderful animals from trash - beautifully evocative creatures that really captured some essence of the subject. And I could list numerous others, some of whose work is regarded as 'famous' within the circle of study of such 'outsider' art.</p>

<p>Recent project I've been tangentially involved in used photography as a vehicle to allow people with depression living in remote rural areas to express themselves. The range of people involved was surprising and the quality of work produced equally surprising. The links between the illness and the quality of the work? I have no clear idea, but I've seen enough to understand that when it comes to creative activity there are forces at work within us that we can only guess at, but would be foolish to ignore.</p>

<p>I have a pair of beautiful paintings on my wall - a gift from a man I met by chance in Washington State, and in whose house I discovered a treasure trove of work. He was driven to paint, literally hundreds of canvases littered the house, every spare space was covered in them, and the only way he could get into bed each night was to lift off several stacks of pictures to pile on the floor to create some lying-down space.</p>

<p>These are powerful forces and all of us so-called creative people should be mindful of that, as we swing to and fro on the seesaw of mental equilibrium.</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Of course the suffering this thread produced in me did stimulate these creative remarks!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And Barry's suffering upon reading wading "through all this" has impelled him to read a book--not necessarily a creative act, but a worthy one, Albert. We shall perhaps live to see if it bears fruit.</p>

<p>In a more serious vein, I would like to remind some of the earlier posters that I have not advanced a thesis that suffering promotes or advances creativity. <strong>In fact, I have not advanced any thesis whatsoever. </strong> Theses are always assertions, and they are always stated in the declarative mood/mode. I have simply asked a question, and questions always are stated in the interrogatory mood/mode. Some responses have very nearly been stated in the exclamatory mood/mode.</p>

<p>I do believe now, upon reflection, that creative work often <em>involves</em> suffering, if the intensity of effort is great enough--and creative persons are often intense persons who perhaps more nearly endure or tolerate suffering than are motivated by it. In any case, I do think that the relationship between suffering and creativity is probably complicated--and probably does not admit of any easy answers. There might well be some persons whose suffering has impelled them to seek a creative outlet in order to alleviate the mental anguish. One need not assume that such persons are psychotic, at least not as the term is commonly used. On another front, I do not doubt that creative activity can be therapeutic.</p>

<p>If the thread has produced more glee than suffering, I cannot say that I am unhappy about that. Perhaps someone will be inspired to write a doctoral dissertation in psychology or art history on one of the issues raised here. I have personally found everyone's remarks instructive, including the most flippant ones. As for my personal inspiration for posing the question, it was probably the old television show "Laugh In," in which Dick Martin, after being hit over the head or otherwise subjected to some sort of abuse, would always smile and say, "I'm a better man for all that," or words to that effect.</p>

<p>I am grateful to Eddy Haskel for his appearance on the thread in several different incarnations. I wouldn't want anyone to feel left out.</p>

<p>--Beaver Cleaver</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p><strong>John MacPherson</strong>, what a beautiful post! We cross-threaded, and I hope that my post did not cause yours to be overlooked.</p>

<p><strong>I hope that everyone goes back a couple of posts to read yours in its entirety.</strong></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[helinophoto]

<p>I agree that creativity an suffering may be linked, but I think it is more correct to say that creativity and emotion is linked.<br />I've found that "suffering" damages my photographic creativity, but it enhances my musical creativity and vice versa.<br /><br />I've never met people who are left-brained dominated (math-geeks, physics majors, chess-players etc) that are also creative in the art department and I have rarely come across people who are great artists, but at the same time are great at math, physics and typical logical subjects.<br />Some may argue that the likes of Einstein and Miclelangelo are personality types that have equally active brain-halves, that enables that person to be logically-creative, seeing concepts in logic never seen before.<br /><br />The left side of the brain is said to be home to emotion and art, I am 100% sure they are closely linked and that they can enhance or influence each other and various parts of each other.<br /><br />One artist once said that melancoly is the joy of being sad, but different moods can producs different artistic expressions or influence other parts of creativity.<br />Also, I saw a very interesting program about brain damage and creativity once (BBC), where they followed a few individuals who had suffer strokes or other kinds of damage to their brains, suddenly the left side went haywire and they become hyper creative in painting, music and so on, even though they might have been pretty dead art-wise before their accidents.</p>

[helinophoto]

<p>Correction: Right side is home to emotion and art.</p>

[williams_gallery]

<p>Mental and spiritual suffering seem to be part of the deal for creative individuals - a defining trait that must be accepted as part of the personality. I see the accompanying high level of alcoholism and drug abuse (also a type of self imposed suffering) among creative people as a symptom of various mental and spiritual afflictions that are not being addressed in a healthy way. It seems creatives find it hard to learn to cope with the hypersensitive awareness that is an undeniable piece of being a creative person. Of course initially as "hyper-feeling" people the drugs and alcohol seem like a fix because they "feel" really good and are thus used heavily. However it almost always ends badly as we have seen time again famously; see Pollock, Hemingway, Cobain and the millions of others who's names we don't know... the list goes on and on...</p>

<p>It's the "volume" that needs to be turned down – for instance I could never handle (and to this day am very upset by) angry, yelling people. For a long time I was ashamed at this and considered it a form of cowardice, but I have come to realize that I can't be selective in who I empathize with. It’s just part of me, like a volume knob with one setting. When someone is angry, whether I am the reason they are mad or not I FEEL it, and it's very uncomfortable. Likewise, when I shoot a wedding and the bride and groom share a touching moment that I am privy to I can feel that also, and it helps me to make images imbued with the intensity of love they feel at the moment – at least that is my hope. In this way I can see the inherent value in this character trait and am grateful for it. I have just learned that it is okay to feel upset, or sad, or lonely – they are just feelings and not anything that needs to be “fixed.” In fact, were I not to feel deeply, I probably wouldn’t care for making photographs.</p>

<p>So to answer the OP's question directly - no - I don't believe one HAS to suffer in order for creativity to be enhanced, but then I don't think we have a choice about the suffering. Ultimately, I believe the opposite: that creatives come to a fruition of their gifts and grow not through adversity, but by learning to deal with suffering by aligning their artistic pursuits with their Creator, a God who instills the "creative" in each of us in the first place. Suffering can be surmounted enroute to our creating. In that sense, we return home and to our primary mission - one that transcends our financial, occupational and personal trials, and gives us the longevity to endure and the strength to press forward.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Matthew, I like the idea that you have offered to the effect that creative people have a "hypersensitive awareness." Regardless of what else may or may not be true, I do believe that creative people do have a much higher sensivity and awareness about a lot of things, not just their work. I do not doubt that there are associated psychological costs of being that sensitive. Not everyone becomes self-destructive, of course, but I personally do believe that those who become the most productive have found a way to channel either their passion or their torment (or both) into their work.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[william-porter]

<p>Aeschylus wrote, "Through suffering, comes wisdom." But all human beings suffer. Of course, some people live through wars or plagues or natural catastrophes, while the rest of us have more private worries. But suffering is there in everybody's life. Looking back over the last 3000 years, at least in the West, I can't think of an artist in literature, art, music or dance who didn't face significant challenges and setbacks, personally as well as professionally. But these challenges didn't make them artists. The challenges were part of being human.</p>

<p>The associated idea that artists are more sensitive to human suffering or human experience generally than "ordinary people" are, is, in my opinion, nonsense. There are plenty of extraordinarily sensitive "ordinary" human beings who just don't take photos or write poems. And there is no shortage of artists who are insensitive bastards, at least in their relations with the actual human beings around them.</p>

<p>Actually, I think it would almost be truer to say that artists as a class tend to be <em>less</em> sensitive to actual human suffering. What artists <em>are </em>acutely sensitive to, however, is the stuff that they can make art from. These two kinds of sensitivity are radically different, even though they are often confused (because "ordinary people" have no idea what it means to be sensitive to the stuff you can make art from). Photographers who cover wars and other events involving great suffering perhaps illustrate this difference better than almost any other kind of artist and occasionally they agonize about it out loud. Do you photograph the man bleeding to death in the street or do you put your camera down and help him? As a photographer, there is only one answer to this challenge: Keep shooting. Few other artists face this question quite so immediately, but many have neglected the needs of their children, their wives, their countries, in order to keep working at their art.</p>

<p>Artists are artists not because they have beautiful souls but because they make art.</p>

<p>Will</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Knack K,- "</strong>I've never met people who are left-brained dominated (math-geeks, physics majors, chess-players etc) that are also creative in the art department and I have rarely come across people who are great artists, but at the same time are great at math, physics and typical logical subjects."</p>

<p>Marcel DuChamp, excellent chess player and artist.</p>

<p> </p>

[johncrosley]

<p>I very much like William Porter's essay above.</p>

<p>I often was in contact with Viet Nam combat photographers both there and when I edited their work at AP in New York City years later.</p>

<p>One photographer in particular who was sent back to the US was a leftist, distrustful of the military and the war, but he did not last long. He was shipped back to the United States and left a quivering mess of an individual who for all outward appearances (I didn't have access to his medical file) was treating with psychiatrists and gulping pills, almost certainly the best that the psychiatrists then had. He had tried to wear sandals instead of military boots, I understand and keep aloof from the soldiers. It didn't work.</p>

<p>At the same time, the Eddie Adamses, the Horst Faases, the Nick Uts and the very many other talented photographers went about their business but also knew that they didn't carry guns and they owed their safety to the soldiers, whether or not they agreed with what the soldiers did.</p>

<p>I dare say these extremely talented photographers were not without empathy; just look at their photos.</p>

<p>But they did not lose sight of their mission -- their overweening mission -- which was to bring the horror of the war home in the photos they took. Nick Ut's naked napalmed girl literally helped change the tide of the war yet was almost not run in the United States because of her nakedness, but Horst Faas pushed for the publication and it did run. That was not an unempathic series of actions.</p>

<p>Taking and disseminating such moving photos rather than acting as medics (and who says that some times they did not assist the medics?) does not necessarily make them less emphathic, by the way, for the amazing photos taken by these three men and the many others who were their colleagues who risked their lives to take them, finally had an enormous part in putting an end to a war that was started on aa premise that was esssentially 'made up'.</p>

<p>The US government now admits that the Gulf of Tonkin so-called 'incident' that started that war did not happen as it was reported and essentially was doctored - e.g. 'made up'. Robert McNamara, secretary of defense who bombed Cambodia, spent his final years apologizing for his part in the war, which he later found indefensible.</p>

<p>What Porter may have seen as insensitivity on the battlefield may have been a sensitivity toward a different goal -- to bring war's horrors to the attention of those who otherwise were insulated from it, with the ultimate goal to stop its ultimate horror.</p>

<p>It's no wonder that since the Viet Nam war, in general the military has sought to insulate and isolate and censor what the public has seen about subsequent US engagements. War is hell and unencumbered and uninhibited public views of that can turn the tide of public opinion, and the US government has learned that lesson well. Now correspondents are 'embedded' and thus censored and not free, as I was, to roam around the battle areas.</p>

<p>john<br /> John (Crosley)</p>

<p> </p>

[helinophoto]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=977570">Luis G</a>: I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm saying that I don't know any (I know people who are extremely one-side dominated and at the brink of being geniuses, but never both).<br>

I think it is very rare to come across such people. :)<br>

If they are, they might have the abillity to come up with formulas like e = mc^2, or paint the Mona Lisa one day and then go ahead and invent the helicopter a few hundred years before it is actually invented for real. :)</p>

[lightwait]

<p>"I think it is very rare to come across such people."</p>

<p>Doesn't the transceiver have to fit the transducer or something?<br>

Without the right coupling, so to speak, you're going to have to wait around a while before you can piggyback everyone's consensus and thus, recognize genius once more.</p>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p>I believe any type of emotion can enhance photography, even depression or lack of emotion. That means that suffering does not necessarily enhance photography.</p>

[helinophoto]

<p>Thomas K, it is easier to spot the left or right dominance easier than you might think, even though we all have traits from both sides. </p>

<p>Emotions (positive or negative) have strong ties with creativity in arts because they lie in the same brain half, and if you happen to be middle brain "dominated", you can pull out all the stops from each side, but it is very rare (probably as rare as finding both-hand dominated people), that's what I mean. =)</p>

[rossb]

<p> I knew a guy once that thought that being miserable was great. He liked to have a pebble in his shoe as he thought it was a simple way to be just a little more miserable. He did not take pictures however. He was to busy eating bananas, smoking pot and thinking about odd stuff. He was smart however. He had a Master's from Stanford and taught Philosophy. He was my teacher in college for 1 class back in the day when the world was still flat. </p>

[luis_g]

<p>Towards the latter part of this week I found out a near and dear friend has breast cancer that has advanced, and due to her age and other problems, she is too weak for chemo, so she's being sent home until it's hospice time. She's an older lady, and I knew something would happen sooner or later, but I was and am devastated. I take hundreds of pictures a week, and I remembered this thread...and I did not see any positive change in my take. YMMV. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Luis, I am sorry to hear about your friend. I can tell that it touches you--and that you suffer as a result.</p>

<p>I have just gotten a book about suffering and creativity, and it explores the issue from the perspective of those who were ill and whose creativity seems to have been affected by the experience of their own suffering, their own illness. I have only glanced through it and cannot make any claims about the issue. </p>

<p>I do know personally that a creative outlet can be an escape that sometimes takes my mind off my own situation, but I hope to see if the book can tell me more--if I can ever find time to read it.</p>

<p>The title is <em>Creativity and Disease: How Illness Affects Literature, Art, and Musi</em>c, by Philip Sandblom. </p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

 

[luis_g]

<p>Thanks for the kind words, Lannie.</p>

[mike dixon]

<i>Emotions (positive or negative) have strong ties with creativity in arts because they lie in the same brain half, and if you happen to be middle brain "dominated", you can pull out all the stops from each side, but it is very rare (probably as rare as finding both-hand dominated people), that's what I mean</i><p>

 

If one side of your brain is actually dominant, it is evidence that you are suffering from severe brain damage. It's unfortunate that the "left brain/right brain" nonsense has become so popular in pop culture because it's largely pseudoscientific horse manure that only interferes with an accurate understanding of how the brain works.

[rick_hawkins2]

<p>Suffering can derive from a large number of sources, among which are those of mental, social, economic, and intellectual. Each individually, or in combination can be the motive power for inspiration and creativity in the world of art. In many of the responses to the question posed, "talent" is looked at as a trait in the creative person that they have been given or predisposed to from birth. In recent times creativity and talent have been shown to derive from "right-brain" thinking (Betty Edwards, et al) and can be a learned attribute of persons who initially thought themselves to be non-artistic and non-creative, but who were willing to exert the effort to learn and practice "right-brain" thinking. In my own case, I always considered myself an analytical thinker (prone to rationalization and logic) which typically renders one impotent creatively because of internal critique and over-thinking. I took on a role of digital photography instructor at a local community college, and that forced me to expand my thought processes to include the creative processes in order to expand my teaching skills beyond the mere instruction of "how to operate your camera." By doing so, it caused me to become much more aware of the creative options open to me in my own image-making. The struggle that always faces me is to allow the two aspects of thinking to come together in the creative process which is more of an intellectual struggle than a one of my mental stability or instability. </p>

[helinophoto]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=22127">Mike Dixon</a>: So, MRI scanning the brain while doing logical tasks showing activity in the left hemisphere of the brain, and activity in the right while doing creative things are nonsense?<br /> The same nonsense that builds upon centuries of studies of the brain and it's functions?<br /> I must ask, you aren't one of those people believing that the earth is 4000 years old as well are you? Trough science, we have learned a lot of things on how the brain works, it's not something some individual sat in a room and decided last year you know. :)</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I don't know anything of a technical nature about the "left brain-right brain" issue, but it seems likely that no activity is purely analytical (or logical) whereas another is purely esthetic. Notwithstanding that one side of the brain might be more engaged or active than usual when one is involved in creative pursuits, it still seems likely that the analytical and esthetic functions cannot be so conveniently factored out as being mutually exclusive. After all, when composing a picture, does one give oneself over entirely to one type of brain function to the exclusion of the other? I personally cannot see how.</p>

<p>I am myself put off a bit when I hear someone say "I'm a right-brain kind of person." Well, we know what the person means, I think, but such statements are a bit over-simplistic to the point of being more than a wee bit absurd. If the two sides of the brain are not communicating, then someone has a rather grave problem.</p>

<p>My feelings when I hear that sort of over-simplification remind me a bit of how I felt in the seventies, when someone (usually a girl) would say, "Oh, so your name is Lannie. What's your sign?"</p>

<p>The exit sign, dear, the exit sign, as soon as possible. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[susan_langford]

<p>I don't think suffering is a premise to producing great art. I am at university with a lot of young people who have not suffered, they may think they have but they produce art because its as part of them as breathing. I come from a family who have have never followed the arts but something inside of me wants to produce art it would be nice if other people enjoyed my art but my enjoyment comes from producing it.<br>

My son had a nasty form of leukaemia, I went through a messy divorce and life has not been kind, I have always been compassionate but I don't think it has enhanced my work, I produce art because it is part of my make up. It enhances my life.</p>

[jay_briggs1]

<p>The book "Touched with Fire: Manic Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament" by Kay Jamison,exposes the many geniuses we have had that died at there own hand, were institutionalized, or died from a social disease. <br>

The main purpose of the book is to show that there is a significant correlation between artistic temperament and manic-depressive illness.(Amazon review). I could not finish this book as is was so melancholic. And to find practically all poets,writers, painters of the romantic era forward had tragic lives.<br>

With all the psychiatric help and psycho-pharmacology available today I think the anguish and suffering could be greatly lessened.<br>

What effect this has on the artists output is the question: if Van Gough was on<br>

Prozac could he have painted "Starry Night" was it bi-polar or glaucoma? Or a divine madness?</p>