The Creative Burden
It is important to understand that the notion of creativity as something that pertains to and defines an individual was not always a common belief. So here’s a quick history lesson for you: The ancient Greeks and Romans did not believe that creativity was proper to one’s own personal being. Creativity did not emanate from an individual, but rather lived outside of an individual’s body and embodied a sort of divine spirit. Creativity would come attend to certain individuals for unknown reasons.
The Greeks called these divine spirits of creativity “daemons.” Socrates, the classical Greek Philosopher, is known to have said that he possessed a daemon that would spew thoughts and ponderings into his ear. Romans called these creative attendants “geniuses.” Back in ancient roman times, the term genius did not refer to someone with exceptional intellectual abilities as it does today. The Romans did not think that a genius was a sign of superior abilities. Rather, the genius was an invisible magical entity that would live with creatives and assist them in their work.
Because of this belief in a creative spirit that accompanied artists throughout their life’s work, providing them with the creative insights that fueled the production of creative pieces, artists in ancient times could not really claim ownership of their work. So if a given piece turned out to be an absolute masterpiece, they owed it all to the genius or daemon. On the contrary, if a creative produced a work that wasn’t so great, he/she likewise couldn’t be blamed for the unsatisfactory piece. There was much less of an onus on the individual himself in regards to his or her creative production.
It was not until the Renaissance, when rational humanism rose to prominence, that the concept of the individual became so important to understanding humanity. During this time, people stopped referring to creatives as “having a genius” and switched to identifying individuals as “being geniuses.” For this reason, the onus of the creative endeavor was placed on the individual, which explains why it was at this point in history, that individual artists actually became recognized for their work.
Ever since the Renaissance, we recognize creativity as pertaining to individuals, not to external beings. And from then on, we have been able to develop notions of how creativity manifests itself in individuals, who could now claim ownership for their masterpieces and attribute them to themselves. However, this development also meant that their creative “failures” were likewise attributed to them and only them. This understanding of the onus of creativity as being entirely dependent upon the individual heavily influences how we conceive of individuals and their creative work, and thus how we judge their creativity — and this has negative consequences for the creatives themselves.
“Being creative is not a hobby, it is a way of life.” — Unknown.
“Creativity is something we all have.” — Negar Nahidian (Graphic designer).
Indeed, statistics point to an unusually high count of creatives who die by their own hand. In 1970, the painter Mark Rothko overdosed on antidepressants and committed suicide at the ripe age of 66. Van Gogh is suspected to have committed suicide with a gun in 1890. The author Virginia Woolf drowned herself in March 1941.
These high rates of suicide amongst creatives point to an even broader trait amongst creatives: high rates of mental illness. The painter Edvard Munch struggled with anxiety and hallucinations. Michelangelo Buonarroti is thought to have suffered with obsessive-compulsive disorder. The poet Sylvia Plath struggled greatly with depression. The singer Amy Winehouse is suspected of having had borderline personality disorder. The author Norman Mailer discussed his struggle with depression, and not long before his death, he proclaimed, “Every one of my books has killed me a little more.”
So why is it that creatives have the reputation of having mental health issues? Are creative minds just naturally unstable? Elizabeth Gilbert, the bestselling author of “Eat, Pray, Love,” investigates these questions and seeks to understand how, given the unusually high rates of creatives who struggle with mental health issues, to “manage the inherent emotional risks of creativity.”
Gilbert argues that we are so used to hearing stories about mental suffering among creatives that we’ve not only accepted it as normal, but we also have come to inherently associate creativity with internal instability and suffering. But it shouldn’t be a given that creatives struggle more with mental illness than other people who have pursued non-creative paths.
Gilbert speculates that the internal suffering that creatives experience could be linked to the fact that in today’s society, we attribute creativity entirely to the creative individual himself. Creatives are entirely responsible for their production, for good and for bad. So if a creative produces a masterpiece, he/she will be praised, but if this same person produces something that is sub-par, he/she will bear the brunt of overcoming his/her creative inadequacy.
According to Gilbert, placing the onus of creativity on the individual creates completely unmanageable expectations for the creative, because creatives can’t control their creativity. Indeed, the process of being creatively inspired is completely irrational, so it seems crazy that we have come to expect creatives to always produce pieces that live up to their last masterpiece. It is even more crazy that we shun creatives when they produce pieces that fail to live up to their masterpieces. For further information about this, read the article below.
Now, at this point you might be thinking to yourself, “That’s not true; I don’t hold creatives to such high standards!” Think about the last time your favorite author or movie producer released a book or film that was not as enthralling as you had hoped. You were disappointed, right? And you are just one person. So put yourself in the shoes of the famous author or movie producer who is on the receiving end of this disappointment. Chances are, if you were disappointed, hundreds or thousands of others fans and critics were disappointed as well.
Can you imagine what it feels like to have hundreds of thousands of other people that once admired you for your work openly discuss how your last piece wasn’t so great? It must be absolutely crushing — not only to one’s self esteem, but also to one’s desire to pursue any creative endeavor in the future. Yet most creatives persist past these disappointments and continue to create, and for that, we rarely, if ever, commend them. The point is, we expect way too much from creatives, and it is precisely these unmanageable expectations that may be a key component of internal suffering within creatives. So next time you find yourself harshly judging a creative’s work, maybe step back for a second and remember the internal burden that so many creatives hold.
Watch all Elizabeth Gilbert’s Ted Talk here:
For more information, please contact me at sfd9@georgetown.edu. To read more, you can purchase my book, “When Birds Swim” on Amazon in paperback or Kindle.
