Typically in Western culture, people tend to romanticize pain or mental illness and the subsequent art forms that correlate with it. In movies, characters with some type of mental illness or depression are a source of intrigue. In the movie The Virgin Suicides, the story revolves around several teenage boys and their fascination with four depressed sisters. The boys were interested in the girls not only because they were attractive but because the girls struggled with their mental health. Essentially, the mental illness was a positive attribute rather than a serious condition. Due to the promotion of certain celebrities and artists within media, it is associated with being “deep” and creative as well. Kurt Cobain is a prime example of the “tortured artist” as there has been a lot of obsession and coverage around his depression and music, contributing to the idea that mental illness elevates people and allows them to think in a more worldly and beautiful way.

English poet Lord Byron stated, “We of the craft are all crazy. Some are affected by gaiety, others by melancholy, but all are more or less touched.” As a result, the stereotype of the “tortured artist” has arisen. Although the media has romanticized depression and/or the link between mental illness and creativity, it is questionable whether there is an actual causality between the two.

The varying artistic mediums usually approach bizarre and dark topics, which may be more revered and intriguing since there is a level of realism and rawness that people find more romantic and genuine. With the romanticization of mental illness and the transcendence of the music/art produced by those afflicted with depression or disorders, it seems as if it is necessary to explore darker topics in order to make better art. If sadness makes better art then it would seem to follow that being mad would produce genius.

If there is a legitimate link between creativity and madness, it’s difficult to understand how to cope with that. I don’t have any mental illness that I am aware of. It makes me wonder if my writing can ever be genius. It doesn’t seem coincidental that I write more when I’m upset and the quality tends to be better when my focus is on slightly darker issues. There is a certain appeal to suffering and depression as it captures the truest realities of the world - there can be no good without the bad. Without that certain level of madness or depression, will I be able to produce inspirational works that transcend time? Can one truly be genius without being affected in some way? As Edvard Munch stated, “What is art? Art grows from joy and sorrow. But mostly from sorrow. It grows from human lives.” While there is beauty and light, the best and most real work seems to come from a deep and sorrowful place. As a writer, I wonder how to come to terms with the fact that my writing may never be good enough without the appropriate amount of suffering and how unfair it is that I can’t seem to have one without the other.

The ethics of medicating those with mental illness have been questioned since some believe the drugs would hinder the ability to be creative. If there is no legitimate link between the two, it seems morally permissible to use medication since the treatment would not affect creativity. However, in the article “Mental illness and Creativity”, Adrienne Sussman quotes a Professor Jamison stating, “many artists and writers believe that turmoil, suffering, and extremes in emotional experience are integral not only to the human condition but to their abilities as artists.”

Sylvia Plath, Vincent Van Gogh, Beethoven, Edvard Munch, Tolstoy - all geniuses in their own artistic form. If they had been consistently medicated, if they had been without suffering or illness, it is difficult to say whether they would have produced work of the same merit. In Ramachandran’s theory, novelty is essential in exciting the brain and evoking visual emotions. In this case, having a mental illness acts as an advantage because it seems to allow the artist to create visions and make connections others couldn’t imagine.

On the other hand, there has been research proving there may be no causality between mental illness and creativity. Daniel Nettle of the Psychology in Behavior in Evolution Research Group at Newcastle University was skeptical of a causal link between creativity and madness. He concluded that creative thinking is similar to psychotic thinking, but they are not the same. They are indirectly linked by neurological mechanisms or genetics but mental illness does not induce creativity and vice versa. Neurotransmitters are responsible for creativity and mental illness but one is not the direct result of the other. There may be commonalities but it does not seem necessary to suffer a certain amount or be afflicted with a type of mental illness in order to produce good work. In this case, medicating someone may be morally permissible as it would not strip them of the ability to create.

If there is no legitimate link between mental illness and creativity, it is questionable why some artists view their work as intrinsically part of their suffering and where the need to have a certain amount of sorrow to produce good art originates. Van Gogh, well known for cutting off his own ear and incorporating this fit of lunacy into his artistic piece Self-Portrait With Bandaged Ear, is another prime example of the romanticized “tortured” artist. The commonly known story about his self-harm is that he mutilated himself and then presented his ear to a local prostitute. He became notorious for this raw and gruesome act and his madness became identified as inspiration for his artwork. However, the version of the story that most are familiar with may not actually have occurred. Historians Hans Kaufmann and Rita Wildegans have revealed evidence indicating that Van Gogh fabricated the story to protect his friend Gauguin. Apparently, Van Gogh and Gauguin had an argument and in the heat of it Gaugin, a fencer, sliced off Van Gogh’s ear. In order to prevent his friend from being arrested, Van Gogh claimed he cut off his own ear and swore a pact of silence with Gauguin. In knowing the true version of events, the association with Van Gogh and his act of supposed self-mutilation becomes less romantic. As a culture, we have idealized the rumor of his self-harm because it contributed to his status as a “tortured artist.” And in the end, the act that has been so romanticized may not have even happened.

While there may be a significant connection between madness and creativity for some artists, it is not a necessity to produce good art. There are many distinguished artists such as Jane Austen or Daniel Keyes who did not have any distinctive mental illnesses yet they produced highly meritorious work. Some artists may contribute their suffering as part of their work, but the overall mindset that one must have a mental illness in order to create good art may just be a cultural cliché that society has created. Because so many legendary artists have connected their depression or disorders to their work, the stereotype of the “tortured artist” has arisen and become a popular cliché. Madness has become so romanticized as a source of intrigue and inspiration in the media that the pressure of having to experience a certain amount of sorrow or have a disorder has intensified. However, while mental illness may be a contributing factor to the merit of some artist’s work, it is reassuring to know that it is not a necessity. My writing may seem better when approaching darker topics but that doesn’t mean it can’t be as good or of higher quality when writing about human relationships, memories, small moments and happiness.