Would van Gogh have been such a good artist if he wasn’t bipolar?

It’s a balance. Medication is necessary for some people to keep them alive.
Some need it for a time then can taper down.
Some people are self aware enough to realize when the illness is being irrational and can handle it with the help of family who understand the symptoms. Those who deny the symptom will probably get into trouble.
meds suck Death sucks more.

I had no idea he was bipolar. i don’t think he would have been such a good artst. there is alot of passion in his art. i can see him being bipolar now.

Ear,ear I concur.

That explains everything.

That crazy bastard!

Plenty of wonderful painters were not bipolar (although old Gauguin did ditch his wife and six kids in order to run away to Tahiti.) Many of them were self-centered (PIcasso, Casals, for example).

Cézanne, Pissaro, Manet, Monet, Renoir and Matisse come to mind.

It is hard to know, but it is just as possible that his illness damaged his ability to paint.

Can’t hear you, one of my ears seems to be missing.

His earlier work wasn’t very good. That’s why it would have sunk into oblivion. The only reason it didn’t is because he continued to work his ass off to teach himself how to paint, and so his later work blazed with success.

This romantic notion that craziness is good for art is just cruel.
Why the fascination?
Here’s my answer: most people can’t make art, and they blame this on their reasonably stable mental health, not on their unwillingness to spend time learning the craft and attending to the extraordinary opportunity to see and appreciate and honor the visual world.

Grr.

I’m told it’s a myth that bipolar folk are less creative when medicated and stable. But one has to wonder. During a mania, you have a lot of energy and can do a lot of work. True, you maybe less able to complete it, but sometimes it is possible to harness it.

Then there’s creativity. When you are emotionally charged—up or down—and your passion is very strong, well, you perceive things differently. You have stronger reactions. You are more impulsive.

I, for example, am much more emotional when in a mixed state. I react far stronger to people. I can bowl over some people. I can ever read their emotions and feelings towards me—something I could never do regularly, and something that gets me into a lot of trouble, because when I see someone likes me, I can’t resist. I hunger for love too much. I need to experience it, and I won’t stop myself. And I can make it happen.

When I had my first mania, I could understand things that I can’t understand now. My brain was faster. I feel dull and dumb now, although I can write now, and I couldn’t really do that before. My thoughts still come tumbling out, and my imagination runs away with any idea at all. If I were a writer, I’d be very productive. Well, if I had the right kind of stimulation—such as what fluther provides.

So I don’t know. He Van Gogh might have lived longer and continued to be productive. I’m pretty sure he would have seen things the same way he saw them when he was manic. I think that once you’ve been manic, you don’t lose that kind of vision. Then again, I’ve been trying to hold onto it. Even the bad parts.

His vision probably would have been different. Less passionate. More controlled. I don’t know if his work would have been as popular. His brush strokes are like little flickers of flame. That reflects the energy in his body when he painted. His hurry. Anxiety. Flick flick flick.

Would van Gogh have been such a good artist if he wasn’t bipolar?

Isn’t that be like saying – would Stevie Wonder be as good a musician if he wasn’t blind?

@wundayatta omg! you crack me up flick flick…... I so identify and I did kill the repair guy loll. Day from hell my friend!

@Pazza of course he wouldn’t haven’t you seen the way he caresses his keys?? the point of the question was really why subdue what is normal to one and classify it as wrong. His earlier works must have been before his bipolar or his depressive phase, the wild colours and brush strokes show his brilliance which started a whole new era in art. That was the point. Else I could have asked could Lois Armstrong still blow the trumpet with one nostril missing.

@gailcalled Picasso had his own issues

Artists are by nature people who value their own opinion over conventional wisdom. They are by definition creating something new.

Bipolar people in the manic phase also have unusual commitment to their internal motivation. They believe without reservation that they are right. They don’t waste time second guessing themselves; they’re not discouraged by critics. When they’re on an interesting tack, they go interesting places. Plus they have that unrelenting energy to tell other people how good it is.

Unfortunatley when they’re headed in the wrong direction they’re just as determined. And so the results then range from pointless to disastrous.

As for the self-centeredness of some artists, there is a reason bi-polar is called the selfish disease. People who are manic place great value on their perceptions. And that includes placing great emphasis on what they want.

BTW wasn’t Van Gogh’s “Blue Period” when he was depressed, not manic?

@6rant6 I didn’t know bipolar’s were seen as selfish? Mind you I agree! I avoid them like hell, even though I am one!!

Van Gogh’s subjects weren’t anything passionate or spectacular but his method of painting and the colors used were. How to know if he was bi polar? How to know if his technique and colors were an expression of how his eyes saw things or if it was how he felt them?

@hungryhungryhortence I think painting prostitutes (or should I say drawing them might have been a bit unusual for his time? Plus falling in love with a male and painting his pipe etc., well I didn’t realize he was bipolar either until recently. But as for proof not sure? I think though what you said about his brush strokes is beautiful, yes he must have felt them.

@Just_Justine: I’ve been a Van Gogh fan since childhood and I always saw his brushstrokes as “flames” and wondered if he saw things in his mind afire with an energy or secret life the rest of us didn’t pick up on. Who knows? Same thing with his choice of colors, perhaps even the most downtrodden subjects caught his eye and showed him a different inner spectrum? I’ve always been fascinated and wish there was a lot more about his life available. He also could have been a stubborn and jaded rebel who poo-pooed the bent towards impressionism. I know for sure when I am lucky enough to view any of his works in person then I feel them.

@hungryhungryhortence at 16 I was totally flawed by him. He inspired me so much I began drawing like mad. I did some of my best art work during my VG period. It was like a frenzy. Perhaps I was experiencing a bit of his mania, perhaps he did it so well it created mania (if only temporarily) or only in those prone to it. I never felt his brush stokes though, you have given me a whole new idea about him. And I love it. I saw his painting as anguished alive and unafraid. Perhaps it was just a projection of how I felt. Oh it was so long ago when I had my VG fascination. I think it is time to revisit his works!

yes and no

@Just_Justine

I was just trying to make the light hearted point that his bi-polar (if he had it) may have hindered his creativity not helped it. Maybe Stevie would have more musical opertunities that would stimulate his mind if he were sighted, since it is an art form and our self expression must be influenced by our experiences, then it stands to reason that sensory input from sight would add to his musical self expression.

But then again we’ll probably never know, as with VG, we definately will never know and everything we do know about his personality is heresay.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, thats mine. Take it or leave it, its not meant to offend, just put another slant on your question, which I actually thought was a good one.

My question would be, if he were alive today, would it be a travesty to forcibly medicate him and loose his talents, since most medications for bi-polar alter your mood, he most probably would never have produced any of the artwork that he did. :-)

Before I was bipolar,I never really thought of myself as being any more selfish than anyone else (in my opinion, every action is selfish, but some are more enlightened). Since my diagnosis, I’ve had this secret belief the disorder would kill me—maybe through suicide, but I doubt it. What’s more likely is that kidney disease will get me, due to lithium usage.

So, yeah, I’m trying to be more selfish. It’s hard, because I’ve been such a responsible fucker all my life. But there’s a couple of things I really, really want. I losing patience with being good. I need these things. Very soon. Or I’ll take the first option. But it will never come to that. I know what I want.

I didn’t get it this time, but I will get it. I will.

@Just_Justine I thought it was common parlance to call bipolar the selfish disease but I see I’m wrong about that. On the net people use it to refer to a host of other symptoms and preferences.

I picked it up from a psychiatrist who was treating a loved one. The way he explained it, I thought that it was the “standard” use.

@Just_Justine: The well-known impressionist painters of prostitutes were Cezanne, Degas, Manet, and Renoir. Van Gogh liked women, slept with them, contracted venereal disease from them, possibly sired several children but did not make drawings of harlots, as far as I can tell.

Gauguin and VG were buddies, painting companions and confidantes for several years; as VG descended further into madness, Gauguin hit the road.

Re; VG’s putative bi-polar disorder;

”.. there has been much debate over the years as to the source of Van Gogh’s illness and its effect on his work. Over 150 psychiatrists have attempted to label its root, and some 30 different diagnoses have been suggested. Diagnoses…. include schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, syphilis, poisoning from swallowed paints, temporal lobe epilepsy and acute intermittent porphyria.

Any of these could have been the culprit and been aggravated by malnutrition, overwork, insomnia and a fondness for alcohol, especially absinthe..” Source

@gailcalled – he lived with a prostitute for awhile and drew her sitting on the commode, etc.
This was in the grey-green period, before he went down to Arles.

Back to the point. If we refused to medicate people in agony because their agony produces stuff we enjoy, we’d be monsters.

@susanc Is anyone talking about refusing to medicate people? I thought it was more about the voluntary decision to stop taking meds.

@susanc – what if they did not wish to be medicated?

it is NOT proven that he was bipolar! To date, the most likely diagnosis is Acute intermittent Porphyria, NOT bipolar disorder!

No matter what illness tortured him, why cant we see him as someone who was brilliant DESPITE his symptoms, not BECAUSE of them?

@alice209 You seem rather adamant about this. Why? Why couldn’t his illness have had something to do with it? Why do you have a problem with that? I know mine has changed me a lot. For one thing, I would never be writing you this if I haven’t had it.

But that’s not very important. What is important is that I can see things now that I didn’t see before. I know things now that I could have never known before. I am sensitive to things and I can write things that I didn’t understand before I got sick.

Bipolar disorder has given me many gifts. Many! Even the torture is a gift. It is torture, but it is a great teacher, too. Although that’s not why I embrace it on occasion. I think I embrace it because there’s nothing else I can do.

My world view has not changed a lot since I’ve been sick, but it sure as hell has been focussed. I am in the place I am because of my disorder. I could do without the pain, but it’s worth it. I think that even if it kills me, it would be worth it.

But it’s not going to kill me.

I think it’s in the nature of being a significant artist to break away from popular conceptions about art. Certainly you can be sane and do that, but being manic or even hypomanic gives a would-be artist a time when that inner voice of self doubt gets turned off or at least turned down. That doesn’t assure them that they will do good work, but it may allow them to do groundbreaking work.

And people wonder why we want to get off our meds.

Actually, that’s bullshit. You can be just as creative on meds as you were manic. Plus you have more follow through.

@wundayatta Thankfully Incredibly, not everyone is exactly like you. Your experience is not the definition of everything.

And unless you’re just stupid, you know that not all medications work for all people, and that some medications have serious, debilitating consequences.

@6rant6 Nobody is like me and yet, incredibly, many people have found my stories about my experiences to be very helpful.

Of course not all medication work for all people. Most people eventually find some that work for them with tolerable side effects. I don’t remember the exact number, but I think it’s over 75%. Even for those for whom medication doesn’t work, there is electroshock therapy and magnetic therapy.

In addition, most people who do go on Bipolar I manic jags just can’t do anything at all with the creativity they generate.

What’s all the hostility about? The question is not whether drugs hurt someone’s creativity; it’s whether Van Gogh could have been creative if he wasn’t bipolar. Clearly the answer is yes.

@wundayatta you wrote, “Actually, that’s bullshit. You can be just as creative on meds as you were manic.”

I just thought that was overstepping your actual knowledge. I’m all in favor of the meds, but I think it’s minimizing to say that going on meds is not a very difficult choice for some people. And not to acknowledge that they may suffer reduced output is misleading. It makes people around the affected person think, “What’s the big deal? Just take the meds!” Certainly there are times in your life where you hoped to get some extra understanding or latitude because you were bipolar? Maybe you started an apology with, “You may not know this, but I’m bipolar…”

My personal experience: I lived with a manic depressive pianist who got diagnosed and went on meds and could no longer play the piano due to tremors. Going on meds was clearly the right choice. But the loss was real.

Yes, there were medications left that she hadn’t tried. But once the mania was controlled, it wasn’t worth the carnage to try new ones.

You wrote, “I think I embrace it because there’s nothing else I can do.” I understand that. You have developed a coping strategy. Your have Stockholm Syndrome vis a vis your disease. I just don’t think that’s a good place for advice to others to come from.

You wrote, “What is important is that I can see things now that I didn’t see before. I know things now that I could have never known before. I am sensitive to things and I can write things that I didn’t understand before I got sick.” Isn’t that the essence of mania, the perception that one has unusual and new inspiration or insight without the counterbalancing internal voices of doubt? It sounds like you still value that facet of the condition. Maybe other people can’t hang on to that and “come down.”

As we have agreed, your experience is not the experience of every bipolar person.

I have more sensitivity now, and I’m not manic. I’m on my meds, and I’ve been very stable for a while. I’m not thinking fast. I don’t have all that many ideas. I’m not anxious.

My fingers shake also, and obviously that is more crucial for a piano player than a trumpet player. Eating with chop sticks has become more difficult, but not impossible. I can work around the shaking most of the time.

I don’t believed I ever used bipolar as an apology. I have used it as an explanation, but I’m not even sure that’s correct any more. I have gradually been coming to the conclusion that I am who I am whether I’m bipolar or not. Other people may want to excuse my behavior because of my disorder, but I don’t think that would be fair.

People say that when I was manic, I wasn’t responsible for what I did because I wasn’t thinking the way I normally would. I agreed with that then, but I’m not sure I agree with it now. Back then, I wanted to be punished, but now I don’t. Now I want to be happy.

I’m on three different meds. I feel good. I feel like I don’t need the meds, but I am not really thinking about stopping them any more. They are my lifeline, and I don’t want to risk falling back down under the surface of the ocean.

But I am still creative. Or at least some people tell me I am. It’s not really for me to say. Certainly I enjoy playing games—and I mean that term very broadly.

I suppose you could be right when you suggest that I am seeking to validate my own choices by suggesting them to others.

I’m not sure why you think embracing something you can’t control is a good place to give advice from. I have given this advice in a number of places and it is the most popular advice I ahve ever given. It is not about giving up. It is about embracing it—not fighting it—because you give it too much power in fighting it. It was through embracing my disorder that I disarmed it and was able to learn how to let it be without making me crazy. And of course, in embracing it, I get to have its gifts.

Nothing else I could do meant that all my efforts to fight it had backfired. They had actually made things worse. And indeed, embracing it is part of a long tradition of coping techniques that go back thousands of years. Mindfulness is a well-established coping technique. If you still don’t think that’s a good place to come from, I’d be very curious as to why.

It seems like you think your experience with your friend has given you a very strong perspective on the disorder. Have you had experience with others besides her? Have you attended groups? Are you a therapist? Have you studied the disorder? Do you have some intuitive ability that you believe allows you to be inside the mind of someone with the disorder? Do you have it yourself?

Your opinion is as valid as anyone else’s, but I think you need more than one experience and more than an authoritative way of saying things in order to be able to have people place a lot of credibility in what you say. Would you disagree that having more experience or education is a more credible place to come from? Perhaps you have that experience. I’d like to know.

I find this happens fairly often. People who are worried about you are constantly checking to see if you have taken your meds. They worry if you are becoming manic. They are often on edge around someone who is sick. When the patient says they aren’t manic, they are not believed.

In my experience, we know what is going on with us. What we hate is the condescending nature of such questions. We know. Once we have learned how, we can ask for help when we need it. I believe everyone knows. The problem is we can’t talk about it because other people are not sympathetic, or they jump to the wrong conclusions and they want to do things we know won’t work. False assurances don’t work, for the most part. Refusal to acknowledge there is a problem doesn’t work. Telling us to snap out of it doesn’t work. There are so many things that normal people do that are ineffective. It’s why we are helped so much more by people who share our disorder than we are by people who are laypersons.

@wundayatta You wrote, “I’m not sure why you think embracing something you can’t control is a good place to give advice from.” I don’t think that.

You wrote, “People who are worried about you are constantly checking to see if you have taken your meds. They worry if you are becoming manic. They are often on edge around someone who is sick. When the patient says they aren’t manic, they are not believed.”

That happens because the consequences of you forgetting meds or going manic do not fall solely on you. People are double checking to make sure that you, they and the other people in your life are safe. This part, I have more experience with than you do. People in mania do harm to other people. I’m not saying it’s intentional, but it’s something that can be anticipated and prevented.

You wrote, “In my experience, we know what is going on with us.” Can’t you understand that is exactly the problem? Manic people do not understand what they are doing, what is “going on with” them. You assert that you are not manic. People who are manic will assert that as well. How then do those around you know when you are and are not manic except by checking to see if you’ve taken your meds and watching your behavior? Your word, I’m sorry to say, is not enough.

The difference between us is that I am not trying to give advice. I’m only suggesting that you acknowledge that things are difficult in a manic household. It’s sometime difficult for the person affected to know what to do about meds. And the other people in the household out of self defense will remain on a heightened level of awareness.

I’m not going to trot out my bona fides. This isn’t about me. It wasn’t about you until you put forward your life experience as the road map for others, and I took issue.