Would the world be better if alcoholic and mentally ill artists sought treatment instead of creating "genius"?

Question

Would the world have been better if sociopaths like Hitler and Napoleon became artists? Would the world have been better if VanGogh and Hemingway did not committ suicide? Would the world have been better if Joyce, Bukowski, and Céline sought psychoanalysis instead of creating bad art?

Despite being considered evil tyrants today, Napoleon and Hitler were considered geniuses in their times.

Answer 1

Okay... I have had just about enough of that nonsense...

Go read some Ayn Rand and be objectively done with it already!

This kind of question is not a question at all, it's an opinion masked as a supposed fact. (which it most certainly is NOT a fact! Not at all.)

Insulting genius makes you look foolish. Not better than...and being so presumptious as to claim to know what genius is or isin't for everyone... doesn't make you look like Aristotle either...


You are not going to change the opinion of people who like it, or what they already know of it, by doing this... but you might change the opinion of someone who has not yet had a chance to read it for themselves and therefore decide for themselves if it is indeed great, or...


not so much... like you believe.

That is not the most intelligent thing in the world to do. Just shortsighted and selfish.

Just read the damn Joseph Campbell book I told you about if you really want to understand Joyce.

If you don't... keep it in the form of an opinion and not a fact!

You have to completely understand a thing from all sides to be able to deem it a fact , good or bad... You don't get it... no matter how much I try and help you so you don't have the right to say such things with such conviction... Not to anyone else anyway.

Napolean and hitler were not artists... Their's was political & tactic genius. and they were too...

Who else could sway the humanity and sensibilities of an entire nation into willing murder and justify it for ANY reason. But were they artists? Nope! Blood is not an artistic medium unless you're God!

And from the sound of things... You probably don't believe in that either so... If I may make a suggestion? Read the Fountainhead and let that be your understanding and be done with all of this Joyce beating...

Answer 2

While some of those did not create 'bad art', I see the point of your question and understand.

I think that the two "skills" go hand-in-hand.
The ability to be creative like that tends to make a person "out of the ordinary" and hence able to be a genius or fantastic artist.

Medically, I think it is based upon having more activity in one side of the brain. One side is creative, the other is logical. Too much creative and they are just too crazy. But the right balance of creativity and logic can result in some fantastic work.

We've all seen an artist do something dumb and say "What were they thinking?" Well, that's the point - artists don't necessarily 'think', they rely on their emotions. So their actions may not always be what most would consider "logical".

Answer 3

As you alluded to, "genius" is relative. Jim Morrison is considered by many to have been a genius, but I don't see it. I also agree that Napoleon and Hitler were far from genius and much closer to sociopathy. In the cases of VanGogh and Hemingway, they may have gone on to create more and better artistic/literary works, but then again getting treatment may have stifled their creativity. It all depends on whether you believe this so-called genius is related to some type of mental anomaly, and I for one don't buy that for a second. The world has produced countless artists, writers, and leaders who were not mentally ill by any stretch of the imagination. So why do we consider the artists you name to suffer from tortured genius?

Answer 4

"Our two minds .... One is an act of the emotional
mind, the other of the rational mind. In a very real
sense we have two minds, one that thinks and one that
feels" (Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence,
Bloomsbury Publishing, London, 1996, page 8). This
rational mind is also called the faculty of logic and
reason.

According to the Upanishads these two components of
mind are opposite in nature. They do not go 'go hand-in-hand'
as assumed by Mr. Hyspeed. Some modern psychologists
have also observed that they are opposite in nature, but
they are not very sure:

"At the same time, reason sometimes clearly seems to
come into conflict with some desires (even while not
being in conflict with others) giving us the impression
that reason is separate from emotion".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

The assumption of Mr. hyspeed that 'logic can result in
some fantastic work' is not correct. Logic has its
limitations:

In the 1930s, Austrian mathematician Godel proved a
theorem which became the "Godel theorem" in cognition
theory. It states that any formalized 'logical' system
in principle cannot be complete in itself. It means
that a statement can always be found that can be
neither disproved nor proved using the means of that
particular system. To discuss about such a statement,
one must go beyond that very logic system; otherwise
nothing but a vicious circle will result. Psychologist
say that any experience is contingent - it's opposite
is logically possible and hence should not be treated
as contradictory.

It is a general observation that persons with 'too much
creativity' appear to be crazy and the so-called genius
is related to some type of 'mental anomaly'.

The Upanishads describe several components of mind.:
Chitta is the component connected with intuition and
emotion. Modern psychologists say that passions have
the same limitations of senses as they tend toward
immediate emotional discharge. Chitta is the quick
acting component of the mind which can be termed as
leftist or negative thinking part. It is called
negative because some psychologists felt that it
separates the received information into pieces,
contains unintentional and contradictory ideas, and
lacks internal organisation, inner consistency, and
concrete solutions. On the contrary, some philosophers
thought that this is the 'idealistic view' of thinking
about a problem. Chitta is connected with instincts,
urges, impulses, desires, imagination,
sentiments, passions, caring, pleasure, exploration,
unconventional ideas, moods, insight, superstitions,
immodesty, immorality, analysis of details, concern
about particular features, capacity to find novel
relationships, unrestrained expressions connected with
body or mind, molding of past experiences into new
constellations of meanings, creation of artistic,
poetic and musical works and the like. Seeing a good
work of painting or listening to music of one's liking
will set waves of emotion in Chitta. It helps us to
imagine things in new ways. It is known that lighter
side of life like fun may contain silly and ridiculous
situations. An artist is said to go to the extremes to
divorce himself from environmental constraints.
:

Answer 5

In a word...No..
Not to "bask" in someone's afflictions (like addiction), but some of the most dysfunctional people have given us some of our most wonderful, beautiful and haunting works of art..music..poetry...I would guess the words "normal artist" would be an oxymoron?

Answer 6

Bukowski created bad art?

Envious, maybe?

Answer 7

So many questions...mostly unrelated issues...what is an authentic reproduction? Oxymorons all!

Answer 8

how about the opposite...
Would we have all this great music from Mozart or Schumann if they had been 'helped' early in their lives?
Would we have ANYTHING from Van Gogh if he had seen a psychiatrist early on?

Answer 9

Wow you bring up good points...I dunno if they would make the world a better place but they might have helped a lot...but if you change history...a lot can go wrong...