Creativity and mental illness

Because of the external feedback they receive or from self-satisfaction?

Self satisfaction-- Here is a quote from the book--\\Question--Why do you do surgery? P. 125

answer from one doctor:

Because of the JOY it gives me to completely cure somebody by removing or repairing something once and for all. It's all or nothing, very direct.

This brings me to a question that I was coming to about perfectionism in creative people. I obviously only know the few creative people that I know but it seems that the "artistic temperament", if that's what we're going to call it, comes with the associated talent and a heavy dose of perfectionism.

The perfect game.

Critical regard by one's peers.

The masterful surgeon.

I sometimes wonder if the anxiety/depression that seems to go hand-in-hand with creativity doesn't somehow manifest from an expectation of perfection that isn't ever quite achievable?

I think your last point is well taken. Some writers agonize over every word and continue to polish, polish, polish. A notable exception was Jack Kerouac who typed the entire novel-On The Road- on one continuous taped together roll which prompted the washpish Truman Capote to note:

That's not writing- That's typewriting!

But,perfectionism is indeed the bane of many artists. Michaelangelo left many unfinished pieces of stone and indeed painted new pictures over old ones which he did not feel comfortable with!

Ah, but you are married? Have offspring? Surely yoyur spouse has supported you in an emotional way?

In other words-- those people who get support might not have the soundest relationships with their parents, siblings, spouses etc, but they still have relationships with them.

Their egos are such they know how to get what they need for their art to continue. In many respects, this means having fake friendships for personal gain.

I've seen this in the most ruthless way with writers.

An exception to this is a woman I used to work with who went through a creative writing program, she was without pretense and guile, who pretty much became paralyzed by her depression. She ended up choosing the medication option, which helps her function day-to-day.

On the opposite end, I know another creative writer who will do anything to keep herself going-- she's ruthless, pretty phony. She'll bad-mouth anyone on the planet until she needs something from them. That's the kind of support I'm talking about: the people who need to support themselves by some other means eg teaching, part-time jobs, because their creative pursuits are rarely recognized in the mainstream.

I was months away from 30 when I got married and I adopted my son when I was 46 so I don't think I followed the typical arc of my generation of women.

My husband supported me by demanding that I get some help, bless his heart.

I'm neither ruthless or guileless so I don't know where I might fit in to your theory.

I've seen both of these personality traits in numerous arenas. The corporate ladder-climbers I used to work with came in two camps. Those who got ahead by making everyone else around them look bad (these types took no prisoners) and those who got ahead by getting the job done and bringing the team up the ladder with them. The latter group didn't take prisoners either because they worked within a cohesive group that were all succeeding together. I don't think this has as much to do with the success of creative people as it does with yet another aspect of temperament -- drive and motivation to succeed.

I agree with a previous statement of boomer's -- success can be defined in innumerable ways. Is an artist successful if he/she can meet their basic needs or are they not successful unless they become a household name?

Your bad-mouthing acquaintance isn't successful in her creative pursuits, but I'm not convinced that it's because she has a creative temperament more than perhaps some narcissism that prevents her from getting along in the world. There are many aspects of temperament that become confounded when trying to generalize. That's why a correlation between one observed trait (creativity) and another (depression) doesn't equate to a cause and effect relationship. They may run hand-in-hand but there are numerous other variables that would impact the ability to succeed (however one chooses to define it) in the world.

It's a broad theory. Nonetheless, your husband sounds like he's been good to you. Not all artists are ruthless, of course. But the non-commercial ones tend to be because they tend to be big fish in small ponds. For example-- a person with a creative writing degree who wants to keep writing is going to try to get the college teaching job, etc.

Are you saying months before 30 was old to get married?

The bad mouthing acquaintence does quite well in the world. She sees herself as a sensitive feeling person who has been afflicted with an enormous burden.

Does she get depressed?--yes. She drinks moderately because her father is an alcoholic and she doesn't want to become one. She's disciplined in her writing schedule and she picks up decent teaching jobs because she's well connected to the art scene.

I'm not seeing much parallel in the working corporate world. In many respects, working for an organization or corporation seems fairly well defined.

This brings up the point of boundaries-- in the art world, if you choose this kind of life the possiblities are limitless, which makes you vulnerable. If you go the corporation route things are fairly well defined except perhaps learning the intricacies of the politics of the organization.

If your temperment can handle this--- then you're a company woman/man. Most artists would never be able to stand 10 minutes of this kind of shenaningans.

Most of the people I knew were already divorced by the time they were 30, so yeah, for my generation I was practically a spinster.

Photography is definately a different ballgame than writing. I've known photographers who have been hugely successful and happy shooting bottles of condiments for a living. Like me, a lot of photographers work in the craft of photography which gives them time to dabble in their art.

I agree with the second point but strongly disagree with the first. You mention the ego of the artist and ruthless artists having fake friendships for personal gain. Trust me --- there's a definite parallel in the corporate world.

Given that I agree with you that artists wouldn't do well in a corporate environment, and that ego is pervasive in both, I don't see ego as the determining factor in the use of a support system for the successful artist any more than the successful ladder-climber.

I agree with the parallels of fake friendships in the art and corporate world-- people have the same tendencies no matter what the profession. However, I am drawing a distinction between the differences in how the brains work-- articstic vs. non artistic.

To me, this gets at the root of your original discussion-- as someone who comes from a family of visual/artistic people I can tell you there are a lot of very boring, straight laced people out there who have absolutely no edge whatsoever. Their foibles and problems are universal, but they have nothing that sets them apart from other people. They don't think for themselves, they don't read interesting books, they don't reflect etc.