~
~
|
How sick are you? by
Robert Genn
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. Citing
Monet, Renoir and Cassatt, he implies that eye problems helped them to
paint the way they did. 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) From The Robert Genn Twice-Weekly Letter
creativity enhancement articles ~ ~ ~ |
|
