5 Answers

  1. The image of the poet as a person to whom the gods gave a little clairvoyance and a little madness already exists in the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European mythology of the beginning of sedentary life (4000 BC), since the Pontic-Caspian steppe is rich in magical grass.

    This image has easily survived to the written literature and, as far as can be judged, has changed only in nuances up to now. In the European tradition, it begins with Plato, who for the most part simply retold the idea of madness as a gift from the gods, and Aristotle — about the melancholy characteristic of poets (as well as great people in general). And since Greece exists in the sphere of proto-Indo-European influences (in Homer, for example, this is very clear), it is important to understand that Plato is not the originator of this idea for European history, but simply an oft-cited authority. That is, for Plato's contemporaries, this idea should not have been the same.

    In the East, the poet, as a longing, drinking hermit, comes through at least from the poetry of the Tang Dynasty and, accordingly, Li Po. Plus, later, when painting also began to be considered an art, around the 960s, the so — called northern painting school was formed, which openly declared the intrinsic value of artistic eccentricity and self-expression-implying that eccentricity accompanies artists to one degree or another. This belief has traditionally prevailed in Chinese history, and has outstripped European Romanticism by just under a thousand years.

    As for European history, I hope it doesn't need to be retold. Blake, Goya, Louis David, Turner, Van Gogh, that's it.

    So, at least anthropologically, the elimination of the art person into a separate category is practiced in all cultures where there are long artistic traditions and a certain historical self-reflection on these traditions. In all others, by and large, too, but with a long list of reservations.

    Whether this stereotype is true is another question.

    From the point of view of evidence-based science, there are a number of studies confirming the correlation with schizotypy, hypomania and bipolar disorder. There are also a number of studies that criticize these correlations as unrepresentative — well, I must remind you that correlation is not causation. Finally, there's the one (banal, but not for everyone) it is a fact that artists work in spite of, rather than because of, certain disorders. Schizotypy can help with finding alternative patterns, but a long period of depression does not motivate you to do anything about them.

    So it's complicated.

    What can be said quite definitely is that people engaged in professional art live in conditions of fundamentally different daily work than people in most applied professions. These conditions are characterized by high nonlinearity, high scalability, almost complete uncertainty, strong dependence on extremely unlikely events, periods of many years of fruitless work with very short but very intense breakthroughs. While most of the recognition in the artistic community is based on relationships with colleagues, and the difference in recognition can be catastrophically high even within small communities.

    Artists, of course, are not the only ones-these conditions also characterize the environment of scientists, Ecclesiastes, military contractors, stockbrokers, etc.. But they are radically different from the living conditions of workers in production or the service sector — people of linear, but non-scalable professions.

    The bottom line is that artistic work is accompanied by an evolutionarily extremely unusual distribution of stress and achievements for humans. This wears out on an emotional level, which aggravates all the mental difficulties that are in the passive (even in the healthiest person), and still requires a certain type of character in order not to give up all this. A man should want to sit in a fortress for thirty years, waiting for the Tartars, who may attack tomorrow, or may never attack at all.

    This is clearly not limited to one or two or several qualities, because people in the artistic environment are very different. Even if you reduce everything to clairvoyance and insanity, all my colleagues are clairvoyant and insane in their own way.

    So in total-xs. Maybe we don't have anything in common, or maybe it's a combination of too many variables to track, at least for now.

    In any case, since the anthropological stereotype has not disappeared, artists at least still always hear certain things about themselves from others. That's probably the end of it.

  2. A person of art is, first of all, a sensitive person: in order to create a work of art (sculpture, painting, book, but it doesn't matter what) – you need to perceive, feel the necessary emanations of the surrounding world, clothe them in an image and give a certain form (the text of the book, brush strokes, sounds of musical instruments, and so on).

    And then it all depends on the specialization. A writer, in order to build a solid and rich story with many details, must be very observant, attentive, and have a very rich and complete system of knowledge about the world around them. Artists and sculptors must have very great perseverance and patience, as well as the ability to masterfully work with their hands (although this, strictly speaking, is no longer quite a character trait)… Well, and so on.

  3. Good afternoon!

    As far as I know, there are no studies that have unequivocally proved that a person who chooses some kind of art gets new character traits. As there are no those that some special character traits are definitely activated during creative activity.

    The image of an eccentric creative person, unable to live a normal life or without alcohol and other addiction, and supporting his inspiration with increased sensitivity and emotionality was created by the works of Murger and Puccini, and then happily picked up by part of the literary, theatrical, artistic and “about” circles to justify his desire to stand out and at the same time lead a carefree life far from the In fact, their arrogance about ordinary people, their contempt for norms, including emotional ones, is not justified, because the aristocracy of the spirit does not consist in shocking others and behaving like an ill-mannered teenager, demanding exceptions for themselves. This is very clearly reflected in the name of such a group, subculture-bohemia (“gypsy”)))

    No matter what traits a person has, no matter how creative or incompetent they may be, this does not completely free them from the need to be socialized, polite, and so on.

    Talent, gift, feats, achievements – all this is fine, but, in my opinion, it absolutely does not give the right to behave rudely or inattentively. So, if you have entered into a relationship, you want to enjoy their advantages, so be in them so that you want to continue this relationship with you, even if you are a genius, even if you are superman.

    As for both character traits and emotionality, it all depends on how a person shows them, how they express them.

  4. The characterization of “man of art” is so blurry, mixed up in self-promotion and fueled by vanity, that it is almost impossible to rely on it.

    Is there much in common between J. S. Bach and the subject who, as an act of artistic creation, has pinned a certain tender part of his body to the pavement?…

  5. There was a lot of discussion about what art is and what it is used for. In addition, in the totalitarian state that Russia has been for most of its history, “art ” has partially served as an absent political life. Therefore, it is difficult to single out a person of art in each period. The conditions changed, and the definitions also changed. Turgenev “fought” with Chernyshevsky and Co., what is here from art, and what from politics? Of course, the feet of a ballerina and a football player are very different, although both work with their feet, the conditions of the profession leave their mark. Working with emotions requires emotionality and sensitivity. Mathematicians are often out of this world, as they build “their own”, (not in demand) people of art often have mental problems. In my opinion, the best actor of his time – Gritsenko ended up in a madhouse. The ideal situation is when everyday problems are not solved by ”people of art” themselves. Quite successful was the pair Dali + Gall, the first drew, the second advertised and sold. With an emotional personality, of course, it is difficult to live, but at least not boring.

Leave a Reply