human suffering and creativity?

[sir octepus tea]

is it actually ethical for a person to suffer so others can enjoy their works later on? I´m thinking van gogh who´s mental disorder(s) influenced his art, or franz kafka who´s traumatic childhood and ill health inspired a recurring theme of random judgement in his books. Many people say that it was highly unethical and that a neat piece of art was not worth a lifetime of human suffering, but many other people suffer for far more meaningless things (think sweatshop workers who weave fabric for an awareness ribbons that will end up thrown away, or telemarketers who work under abysmal conditions to please unpleasable bosses and clients). On the other hand, refusing to treat creative people for fear that they won´t create as much, when the condition they have can be relatively easily alleviated (not cured) with therapy or modern medicine is black and white, plainly put refusing treatment for a sick person for egoistical reasons. And is it possible to tell whether artists truly cope using their art? What value does suffering have? What is the true cost of art?

 

[Frodo]

As someone who is deeply moved by Van Gogh's art and letters, I wish he could have had a happier life. I would gladly go without his genius if it meant his time in this world was less painful. I think my own struggle with depression has made me a better writer, and in the past I've shied away from getting treatment because I've worried about losing that part of myself. I've struggled with depression since I was 14, and I turn 24 this year--I don't even know who I would be without it. I also believe I can relate more to some of my favorite prophets--Elijah and Jeremiah, in particular--because I know what it is like to detest my own life and yet feel compelled to work towards a brighter future for others. This is getting a bit theological, but I believe our suffering can be used for greater things. I don't think God makes us suffer for this purpose, but I believe once we have already suffered, God can take that and make it something more. Still, I would never wish these feelings on anyone, even a genius like Van Gogh.

[Sherlocks]

Creative and intelligent people often suffer the most. 

Intelligent people are often not very well understood and some of the things they do might be viewed as bizarre. 

Creativity means you have a different often more abstract or deep way of seeing the world. 

It always means you are different from the rest. 

Sometimes creative is viewed as overly eccentric 

[m4rble]

No one should be forced to suffer because it might cause them to produce better art. It's true that people suffer for pettier reasons but they shouldn't. 

[Sylvastor]

In the case of artists, we should not view it if it's ethical or not. View it from the perspective of the artist who is being creative.

This creativity is more or less an outlet and a self-therapy to get over tragedies, negative impacts in their life, social loneliness, mental troubles or much more. Often they chose this because it works best for them and because they enjoy it. The positive side effect of this is being able to let it out into the world and enrich people's lives with it (doesn't mean you will want to). I feel this is forgotten so often. You wouldn't be doing it if you didn't feel better doing it. In other words, we should not take their art away because it's unethical they suffered to make it, just like we shouldn't encourage it either. Leave it to the person to decide how they express themselves and cope with it. You can offer support, but you have to respect it if they want to support themselves by other means (like art).

However, if you don't suffer, that doesn't mean you cannot create (good) art or that you badly need to end up suffering in some way to be better at it or whatnot and have to seek a way to achieve this.

Suffering != good art (or art at all) as a result.

 

So, yes, you wouldn't be doing it unless it would make you feel better. Unless you're forced to of course – which is a good transition.

Let's talk about the sweatshop workers. Simply said: That's a problem of society and humanity as a whole. The underlying reasons often being greed, unequality and preservation of one's own status and luxury under any circumstances. The only fix would be a global agreement to equalize laws, standards and controls all throughout the globe, basically a world government with uniform laws. Unlikely to happen in the near future, or if I'm going to be a pessimist, maybe even at all.

[Lord Jade Cross]

50 minutes ago, Sherlocks said:

Creative and intelligent people often suffer the most. 

Intelligent people are often not very well understood and some of the things they do might be viewed as bizarre. 

Creativity means you have a different often more abstract or deep way of seeing the world. 

It always means you are different from the rest. 

Sometimes creative is viewed as overly eccentric 

This pretty much sums up my entire student years, and then some.

[NerotheReaper]

I wish I haven't had to suffer in order for my writing to be more impactful, been through a lot but when I show my writing to others their minds are blown. They praise the writing but also are taken back by it. Hardships can give artists a powerful fuel and can allow them to stand out from the average joe, but no one should need to got to hell and back in order to be successful in art. 

 

A lot of artists do project their pain and thoughts into their works, because keeping these poisonous and harmful thoughts in their heads is unhealthy. So they write, paint, draw, etc it out into the world those thoughts take on a physical form taking a weight off of the artist since it is out. People might be taken back by it, but for the artist it is nice to get the weight off their chest. 

[SorryNotSorry]

One important factor to consider is to what extent a given society or culture tolerates innovation and critical thinking, not just creativity. All one has to do is take a look at societies and cultures where conformity trumps individualism, to see how little truly original material they create as opposed to modifying something that already exists which was introduced from another society or culture. In that respect, artistic creativity and technical innovation don't differ very much.

[Chieftain-Drake]

I would say that refusing a sentient being treatment purely for the sake of art is unethical. However, as several others have mentioned, the creator in question must be the one to accept or deny that treatment. Speaking from experience, suffering through the hard days when you can barely lift your head is awful, but sometimes it's worth it to look down at your paper and see you've made something worthwhile. Mental illness and trauma have no positive cure, we can only hope that what is attempted will accomplish the goal. And it is for this reason, that communicating your suffering vividly onto paper in a variety of ways is so up-lifting. Because it means that, in our own way, we are helping push people into a future of understanding one another. A future in which people don't have to scream into their pillow because no one will understand them except the others who are trying to scrabble out of the same pit they're in.

 

Suffering for art may not be ethical, far from it. But if the victim refuses treatment, sometimes that can help push us further. No one should have to sacrifice their mental health for this, but it often makes everyone involved and even those not involved into better people. One way or another.

[Coakes]

personally I'd rather have the treatment so that I can actually get my motivation to create back. My own depression hasn't gifted me with something I can vent as of late, its more made me numb and not want to work on anything which is super frustrating.

 

But at the same time I wouldn't trade the experiences I've had, since I'll be able to look back on them later with a critical eye.

as for forcing another artist to deal with those experiences I'd say heck no that's awful and I wouldn't wish it on anyone else... I think art can be an outlet to deal with these issues but shouldn't become something that an artist has to rely on to keep making work, its not healthy.

[Starry Sky]

This reminds me of a lecture I had in Literature class a few weeks ago. We were analyzing Samuel Taylor Coleridge's "Kubla Khan" and discussing the correlation between creatives and mental illness and instability. Eventually the question came up, is this enthusiasm, this passion creatives have, worth the mental illnesses that seems to be packaged with it? The writers, musicians, and artists in the class all gave a unanimous "yes"... I sat there screaming "no" in my head. It's not worth it when that enthusiasm is what gives you life but then that illness takes away your enthusiasm and you lose everything you once loved and enjoyed. Everything you once were. Now this thing that was once your everything means nothing to you and you're just left there with no meaning to life. Not worth it in the slightest. What a waste and what a tease. So I was pretty bitter about all the creatives in my class who find it worth it. Closing that discussion, the professor, who is a writer, gave his thoughts and he had an opposing view compared to the class. He, too, believed it is not worth it. 

 

That's more on the suffering and if it's worth it for the artists themselves, though. From the viewpoint of the consumer, I can understand people wanting to enjoy the other person's creativeness despite that person's pain. For many people, creativity, and more often, other's creativity helps them cope with their own suffering. A quote, or at least what I was able to scribble down, from the aforementioned professor when we were analyzing Wordsworth's "Tintern Abbey." "Poetry, art, and music do not just talk to the mind. You will miss out unless you are willing to open up to it... My experience with literature has kept me alive... In the sense that it can keep us from emotionally and spiritually shutting down." 

 

However, while it crushes me to think of life without the absolute gift of my favorite creative people's works, if not getting the pleasure of enjoying it meant they wouldn't have to suffer, then I am all for it. I hate to see the pain that they struggle with. It shows up in their work. Yeah, it's nice when they're so unfortunately relatable that all you can say is "wow." But how such a beautiful, amazing individual has to go through such horrid things... Every single one of them... It's cruel and it's hurts. 

 

Other's creativity means the world to me, but it would mean even more if that person were to live a happy life. Sure, it wouldn't really matter if I wouldn't have known about them without their creativity... but to me, other people's happiness is worth more than my own. Even if it is of someone seemingly insignificant in my life. 

[sir octepus tea]

2 hours ago, Coakes said:

personally I'd rather have the treatment so that I can actually get my motivation to create back. My own depression hasn't gifted me with something I can vent as of late, its more made me numb and not want to work on anything which is super frustrating.

 

But at the same time I wouldn't trade the experiences I've had, since I'll be able to look back on them later with a critical eye.

as for forcing another artist to deal with those experiences I'd say heck no that's awful and I wouldn't wish it on anyone else... I think art can be an outlet to deal with these issues but shouldn't become something that an artist has to rely on to keep making work, its not healthy.

I feel the same, not that I have depression but sometimes when I´m feeling really... I dunno "brain-noisy" it kickstarts my creative processes but I can´t actually focus through all the noise. what I create can be either really good or most of the time unsatisfactory for me

[kelico]

Very interesting topic.  I think it might get some more responses in PPS, though, so I'm going to move it. : )

 

Thread moved from Open Mic to PPS.

-kelico, Open Mic Moderator

[Euna]

With Kafka, the majority of his writings were not meant to be read.  (He asked his friend Max Brod to burn them posthumously, and Brod didn't do it.)  So, I'm not sure if his was a case of "suffering for the sake of art/consumers"... I get the gist his fiction was much like his diaries, written for himself.

 

I think there is definitely a risk when new art is constantly expected from artists, songwriters, authors, etc.  The pressure to have more experiences, including negative ones, to fuel one's output has got to be difficult.  I've improved mentally over the last year or two, and as a result, have written much less poetry.  If writing poetry were my full time job, it would be tempting to keep reliving the emotions associated with it, but it wouldn't be good for me in the long term.

[Yatogami]

The human condition is to suffer, and lament about it later. The conveying of profound feelings is the outlet of suffering. I myself as an artist, was inspired by my own suffering to convey my feelings in a way that words would do it no justice. Like that saying "A picture is worth a 1000 words", is not very obscure, and correct in many ways. 

[Puck]

When people suffer hard traumas it gives them a different view of the world which allows them to think outside the box. Not every person who survives an ordeal will succeed, but many of the most successful people we know have gone through intense ordeals and created incredible things because of it. It's not just in creative fields where this advantage is seen, actually. Dr Jay Freireich, who invented combination chemotherapy (a breakthrough for leukemia), lost his parents at an early age and struggled to create bonds with people. This helped him in his work because he was less.... squeamish than other doctors to try things on patients. Where other doctors empathized with patients, he saw the end goal of experimentation. Thanks to his work, millions have benefited from the treatment. Thus, his suffering and the effects it had on his mental health literally saved lives, an a less traumatized person might never have tried the things he did.

 

To this point but to also bring in a personal note, suffering happens and sometimes humanity benefits from it. I don't think it's an ethical choice, really, as we don't choose for trauma victims to create are or pursue whatever goals they do. They choose to, and utilize their unique point of view to create things people who haven't suffered such simply could not. I do hope that, should we come across these people, we support them and love them to the greatest extent we can to ease said suffering, but their work is often a support in and of itself.

 

I wish suffering never had to happen. However, I am immensely grateful for those who have taken their pain and turned it into such incredible things that benefit me so.

 

PS. I got the story of Dr Freireich from Malcolm Gladwell's "David and Goliath." He does a much better job of explaining it and in general it is just an insanely good book.

[Sally]

Suffering doesn't lead to creativity, or vice versa; they're  not directly related.  In fact, suffering -- either physical or mental --  can be very distracting to someone who's trying to create.  What's necessary for creativity is talent, not suffering.  

[Sally]

Sometimes people carry the creativity/suffering BS to the extent of feeling that whatever they do or feel that is out of what's considered to be the norm increases their creativity.  Charlie Parker took drugs off and on during his musical career and was convinced that his sax playing was so  much better when he was drugging.  Then when he was in an off  phase he happened to listen to a record of himself during an on phase and realized what people had been telling him.   

[MoraDollie]

I just wanna clarify something (this is coming as someone who majored in studio art and minored in biology for their undergraduate degree), artists do not intentionally go through traumatic events to get "great art". To achieve "great art", one doesn't have to go through some big "life changing" event either. Is it true that a lot of great 'classical' (I use that term loosely, I just mean artists from the 1950s and beforehand, since I am not that caught up with "contemporary" art) went through some terrible pain in their life (mental/physical illness, trauma, etc.)? Yes. However, it is currently estimates that at least 30-75%+ of the human population will experience mental illness symptoms at some point in their life.

 

When I was younger (teens), I had SUPER melodramatic poetry. Like, I went through an old box of them and laughed at how super gloomy/dramatic it was. I wanted to burn them to permanently put that part of my life to rest. However, people I did show those poems to at the time absolutely fucking adored them (I do not know why....). As my life perked up with who I was surrounded with, what I was exposed to, etc. I really came to an abrupt 'stop' with writing them I'd say around ages 17-18. The reason is that I just didn't feel the need to write, because I was overall much happier with where I was in my life at the time. Currently, with my illustrations, majority of my subjects are based on people (because I find the human body absolutely beautiful and fascinating). The point I am making here, is that artists will use their artistic gifts as a means to express whatever is happening in their life at the time. They feel like it is the best way of expressing whatever is on their mind, to get it out into the world.

 

There was actually an episode of Bones that briefly touched on this. Their medical illustrator/forensic artistic basically said that how an artist makes their mark on their canvas (or whatever tools they are using, like clay for sculpture) shows what they are feeling and what's going on in their mind, at the time. In a way, this is totally true. 

[binary suns]

we suffer because we're supposed to be able to. it is how we know to take our hand away from the flame, instead of leave it there to be destroyed. suffering is a good thing. 

 

should we celebrate how some people suffer a lot as an inspiration for art? lol that's dumb. you can't put someone through a vigorous training of suffering and expect them to come out as the next van gogh. that isn't how statistics works. there are certain things that need to happen in order for someone to have great work in art - and suffering appears to have some association with those things. really, you would probably need to make 100 humans or even 1000 humans or who knows maybe 10000. suffer like van gogh in order to find the next van gogh. what a ridiculous idea! if I would decide to make 1000 humans suffer I'd want it to be a much much more impactful outcome. tbh I can't be bothered to wonder what kind of reason is "good enough" to create that much suffering. 

 

lol - you don't even need morality to realize the pointlessness in that. imagine what 1000 people could do if they weren't subjected to rigourous suffering program. and imagine all the worker's youd need to facilitate that program. what a waste of time lmao!

[Toothlesss]

No one (unless we're in some soviet era regime or something) forces us to suffer to create. Heck, I'm writing one of my favorite scenes to date thanks to my own struggles with dysphoria. 

[Skycaptain]

As a converse. I exhibit neuro diverse response patterns, one of which is that it's virtually impossible for me to empathise with others. This doesn't affect my creativity, it just makes it soulless