A tinge of The Crazy may aid creativity, according to Roger Dobson’s recent article in The Independent. Well…um, no shit. I coulda told you that, Roger. Some of the most brilliant and creative people I have encountered in my life have had at least one screw loose, sometimes more. Hell, most days I feel like I am merely hovering over the Crazy/Sane divide myself, precariously vacillating between the two. I try to coincide my Crazy with moments of artistic creation and my Sane with moments of bill-paying-related activities and interactions with other human beings…but wouldn’t you know it that those damn bitches don’t listen to a word I say and just show up whenever they feel like it? But I actually cherish this internal instability, even though it sometimes causes me pain and isolation and depression. And it appears as if I’m not the only one (The Icarus Project seeks to navigate “the space between brilliance and madness”). And apparently, “there is no clear dividing line between the healthy and the mentally ill.”
In his article, Dobson quotes professors and alludes to “studies” and cites prominent historical figures all to try to explain why so many creative minds are also highly unstable and, in some cases, psychotic. In particular, I was impressed by his natural selection argument:
“Mental illnesses have been around for thousands of years. Evolutionary theory suggests that in order for them to be still here, there must be some kind of survival advantage to them. If they were wholly bad, it’s argued, natural selection would have seen them off long ago.”
Fascinating. And it makes total sense. Why else would these “crazy” genes keep showing up? And why else would (some) carriers of these genes keep making brilliant art and profound discoveries?
Gordon Claridge, a professor of psychology at Oxford, offers a possible answer:
“There is now a feeling that these traits have survived because they have some adaptive value. To be mildly manic depressive or mildly schizophrenic brings a flexibility of thought, an openness, and risk-taking behaviour, which does have some adaptive value in creativity. The price paid for having those traits is that some will have mental illness.”
A flexibility of thought. Yes. I suddenly have a vision in my head of famous M.C. Escher artworks, like Drawing Hands or Relativity. Escher, like Salvador Dali, was brilliant at depicting flexible worlds….places where the edges of reality are blurred and challenged. Where seemingly unconnected things bleed into each other and make sense. Worlds that cause us to question our own perception of reality.
But the key to this theory is the word mild. Emilie Glazer, an experimental psychologist, argues: “The underlying traits linked with mild psychopathology enhance creative ability. In severe form, they are debilitating.” So…in other words: you have to be crazy enough to be able to see the world in a different way, but you have to be sane enough to function among other human beings. Oy-vey. They don’t ask for much, do they?
It all feels kind of connected to my post on Sunday about the possible link between alcohol and creativity. For those with the G-variant gene, a few drinks may actually aid the creative process. But more than a few drinks can make that same artist/writer lethargic and sleepy. And repeated attempts to recreate this lil’ creative boost can turn that same artist/writer into a raging alcoholic.
So balance is key. Yes, yes, yes. But here is the problem: sometimes part of what makes a creative individual so creative is their intense vacillations between polarized extremes. Part of the creative process is exploring both the ecstasy and the agony of being alive. It’s difficult to impose moderation on such a nebulous and tumultuous journey. And if your genetic makeup predisposes you to mental illness and/or alcoholism, how tempting is it to just surrender and let yourself fall into the abyss?
And how much of this is in someone’s control anyway? I saw Next to Normal on Broadway this past Sunday, and I felt like the show spoke volumes about how terribly fucked a bipolar person can get when modern medicine fiddles too much with something it hasn’t even come close to understanding yet. Diana, the bipolar protagonist, is heavily medicated at the beginning of the show, rejects her meds and tries to reclaim the highs and lows of her pre-medicated life, plunges into a deep depression, goes through a round of ECT treatments, and ends up not even sure who the hell she is. In addition to being a spot-on depiction of bipolar and the family dynamics that emerge as a result, the play did an excellent job of questioning and challenging the ways modern science deals with mental and emotional illness. Which goes a little something like this:
“We just don’t fucking know. But them Crazies sure make cool art n’ stuff.”
So I think it’s a no-brainer (pun completely intended). Yes, of course mental illness and creativity are connected. Because the most interesting art is art that takes us to another world. Who better to create that art than individuals who hang out in that other world?
