Freedomain Radio

Seeing as so many artists around the world are and have been tortured souls, having suffered all manners of abuse, what are your thoughts on art as a product of suffering?

I'm pretty sure that in all cases, had the suffering and / or abuse not occurred, the music / painting / sculpture / poetry / etc. would never have been created. Perhaps different art would have been created, but certainly not that art.

Don't get me wrong... I am definitely NOT saying art is an excuse for suffering and abuse... but perhaps it could be considered silver lining? 

Years ago I had a job which regularly had me in close contact with various fairly famous artists. In a discussion with Arlo Guthrie, a friend of mine asked him, "Do you think you need to suffer in order to produce great art?" To which he responded, "No, I don't think you have to suffer-- but if you are making great art, you probably are."

It’s interesting this view of the tortured artist only really started with the likes of Van Gogh and Picasso. Prior to that most artists were quite respectable individuals. However, there is no question in my mind that Picasso revisited his trauma in almost every painting he made. Go to the gallery in Malaga and check out his sketchbooks, very disturbing. Objectively, I really can’t see what all the fuss is about with his art. I can only conclude that people see a mirror of themselves in him. Personally I can sometimes feel sick looking at Picassos work.

I spent a lot of time with artists in the past myself, sometimes professional, other times amateur. Certainly the current meme is that to be a good artist one must suffer. Even though whilst I was studying art myself, I was actually more interested in my work becoming more universally understood, rather than the indecipherable tortured stuff going on around me. However, academics preferred the weird over the universal every time, so my preference was always overlooked. The popular artists amongst my group were often the weirdest and most obsessive. Those that could do the most drugs, binge drink the longest. All this behaviour smacks of a traumatic childhood of course. Grief one girl wanted to have sex with a painted manikin on a floor painting she created. Fortunately the lecturer talked her out of it. Looking back now, her other stuff was particularly disturbing and possibly as a result of childhood sexual abuse.

I think art and music are places that people who have experienced trauma can go and become accepted. They are often quite dysfuctional in any other enviroment, so the current culture in art helps them fit in. As to whether you can produce great work in this state, well of course. But I’m sure we could produce even more magnificent works without all this trauma. I’m certainly revisiting my artistic self again, after a long time out of it and anecdotally (at least) I’m finding my creativity after therapy and philosophy to be a lot more creative.

Suffering is not a requirement.  However, I think if you're in the process of making art you cannot be suffering.  Your negative experience would have to come before and fuel the positive creation.  But once you're in the zone and doing the work it's all good.

I agree - the only requirement to produce art is emotion. 

I think art without negative emotion would be like a palette of colour without red. It's the variety of emotions combined with how the artist interprets and translates these emotions which makes art (in all its forms) so beautiful, varied and essential. 

Dave Bockman:

Years ago I had a job which regularly had me in close contact with various fairly famous artists. In a discussion with Arlo Guthrie, a friend of mine asked him, "Do you think you need to suffer in order to produce great art?" To which he responded, "No, I don't think you have to suffer-- but if you are making great art, you probably are."

That's a great quote

Richard_V:

I think art without negative emotion would be like a palette of colour without red. It's the variety of emotions combined with how the artist interprets and translates these emotions which makes art (in all its forms) so beautiful, varied and essential.

Yes, but one shouldn't confuse trauma with emotions.. Sure an artist can express all the emotions expressed as real and understood.. Unprocessed trauma often resembles looking at a motorway pile up at times, traumatic for the conscious viewer.

Certainly I'm not suggesting they shouldn't produce art.. Just I myself would prefer to see less traumatic stuff as is currently popular.

xelent:

Richard_V:

I think art without negative emotion would be like a palette of colour without red. It's the variety of emotions combined with how the artist interprets and translates these emotions which makes art (in all its forms) so beautiful, varied and essential.

Yes, but one shouldn't confuse trauma with emotions.. Sure an artist can express all the emotions expressed as real and understood.. Unprocessed trauma often resembles looking at a motorway pile up at times, traumatic for the conscious viewer.

Certainly I'm not suggesting they shouldn't produce art.. Just I myself would prefer to see less traumatic stuff as is currently popular.

I did not confuse trauma with emotion... but trauma - even unprocessed - could lead to emotions which, controlled or not, could be expressed as art.

When you talk about 'traumatic stuff' of late, to what are you referring out of interest?

Richard_V:

I did not confuse trauma with emotion... but trauma - even unprocessed - could lead to emotions which, controlled or not, could be expressed as art.

When you talk about 'traumatic stuff' of late, to what are you referring out of interest?

Well, I can only talk for the art world myself. But I would say almost 80 -90% of the (popular) work is based on unprocessed trauma. Take Jake & Dinos Chapman's work, some of which characterises manikins of young children with penis's for noses. Damien Hirsts mutilations of animals or the use of their carcasses as a canvas. Tracy Emin is perhaps the most well known, with her Turner Prize winner, called 'My Bed'. A work which was littered with used condoms and empty vodka bottles. She has recently been handed a plum position at the RA as professor of drawing. For someone who openly mocked drawing and painting in the past, I found her placement rather amusing to say the least.

Going back to the post war era we have Francis Bacon, Mark Rothko, Anselm Kiefer and Joseph Beuys to name just a few. Their work is really quite disturbing. Mark Rothko famously commited suicide and of course the last two were German, so I can only imagine some of the stuff they may have witnessed as children of the war themselves. This stuff was the mainstay of contemporary art at the time.

In qualification, it’s not so much that people depict unprocessed trauma itself, so much as it is all too often encouraged. The sort of attitude as Dave described from Arlo Guthrie is all too common. In many ways it encourages artists to explore dysfunction without resolving it. Indeed that they should celebrate dysfunction and wear it as a badge of accomplishment even. I think it’s the assumption that this stuff is ‘raw’ and that by definition it becomes ‘pure’, when depicted artistically. That without it being shocking, traumatic or perverse it will lose value. This really isn't true and at its worst resigns the artist to 'weep in silence'. Since to resolve their dysfunction would be to lose their career or certainly a large part of it potentially.

Of course this is all my opinion, but from my experience of artistic processes and having spent a significant amount of time on personal introspection, I am lead to these conclusions overwhelmingly. Having said that, do check out the work of Andy Goldsworthy, Ansel Adams and Bill Viola. Art that explores some of the more positive sides of humanity and our environment. They do exist, but very often have to work that much harder to get noticed.

Anyway, apologies for my long windedness, you posted about a subject very close to my heart that I am deeply passionate about.

xelent:

Well, I can only talk for the art world myself. But I would say almost 80 -90% of the (popular) work is based on unprocessed trauma. Take Jake & Dinos Chapman's work, some of which characterises manikins of young children with penis's for noses. Damien Hirsts mutilations of animals or the use of their carcasses as a canvas. Tracy Emin is perhaps the most well known, with her Turner Prize winner, called 'My Bed'. A work which was littered with used condoms and empty vodka bottles. She has recently been handed a plum position at the RA as professor of drawing. For someone who openly mocked drawing and painting in the past, I found her placement rather amusing to say the least.

Going back to the post war era we have Francis Bacon, Mark Rothko, Anselm Kiefer and Joseph Beuys to name just a few. Their work is really quite disturbing. Mark Rothko famously commited suicide and of course the last two were German, so I can only imagine some of the stuff they may have witnessed as children of the war themselves. This stuff was the mainstay of contemporary art at the time.

In qualification, it’s not so much that people depict unprocessed trauma itself, so much as it is all too often encouraged. The sort of attitude as Dave described from Arlo Guthrie is all too common. In many ways it encourages artists to explore dysfunction without resolving it. Indeed that they should celebrate dysfunction and wear it as a badge of accomplishment even. I think it’s the assumption that this stuff is ‘raw’ and that by definition it becomes ‘pure’, when depicted artistically. That without it being shocking, traumatic or perverse it will lose value. This really isn't true and at its worst resigns the artist to 'weep in silence'. Since to resolve their dysfunction would be to lose their career or certainly a large part of it potentially.

Of course this is all my opinion, but from my experience of artistic processes and having spent a significant amount of time on personal introspection, I am lead to these conclusions overwhelmingly. Having said that, do check out the work of Andy Goldsworthy, Ansel Adams and Bill Viola. Art that explores some of the more positive sides of humanity and our environment. They do exist, but very often have to work that much harder to get noticed.

Anyway, apologies for my long windedness, you posted about a subject very close to my heart that I am deeply passionate about.

Great post. I am very much in agreement, even though I don't know many of the artists you have mentioned (none of the "good" ones). I will be checking them out.

Great post. I am very much in agreement, even though I don't know many of the artists you have mentioned (none of the "good" ones). I will be checking them out.

Me too. It seems to me that "suffering"  to the average contemporary artist is what "poverty" has always been to politicians:  a cultivated tool.

I like Helmantel: a dutch contemporary artist who can actually paint. Unheard of ... you should hear the academics, the art-professors. He sells his work to private collectors, and does not need the art-world.

Xelent- I too will be checking out the artists you mentioned. Cheers for that.

Richard_V:

Personally, my mother told me that when I came home from school aged about 6 upwards, I would sit down and play the piano and my shoulders would slowly relax... as if the stress and strain of school was leaving me.

Actually, this is a really good point. It's probably worth noting that perhaps unprocessed trauma is the only access to becoming a great artist for an 'unconscious' person. Of course children are more likely to alleviate this unconscious (or conscious perhaps) state in a desire to get rid of the bad feelings they will be experiencing elsewhere. Going to a magical world where they create beautiful music or pictures is a great respite from their real life. But given that it's common for the vast majority of people to consider themselves as inept, if not downright feckless at most things. That the only way to practise an art form to such a highly skilled degree is to actually enjoy the process of learning itself. If it's an escape for you, then the effort is not going to be felt. Whereas the person who considers him/herself overplaying their hand (being grandisose) or just not capable of it, will just give up, since the process of learning will be painful and humiliating for them.

This would make sense I think, since terms like 'genius' and 'star' are widely used to describe people with mythical qualities that supposedly sets them apart from the rest. That this is something you're born with and could never be achieved personally.

 If it's an escape for you, then the effort is not going to be felt. Whereas the person who considers him/herself overplaying their hand (being grandisose) or just not capable of it, will just give up, since the process of learning will be painful and humiliating for them.

Xelent, this is me, or at least I feel some profound meaning is in it for me somewhere in your words.

For me, the need to draw and play music diminished to the degree I became able to live a life outside of my internal "magical" world of drawing.

Which was obviously a liberation, but a personal loss also. Without the trauma and grandiosity to drive things, what was left was a sense of being a mediocre craftsman, having worries about the future, feeling pain and humiliation in the face of having to learn.

I managed to finish art-school. After which I stopped drawing, essentially. And took up programming instead.

That's really interesting Ruben, I think to some degree that was similar for me. I actually think the academics put me off myself, or that's certainly what I said to myself at the time. Something for me to sit with on that I think, thanks.

I will say however, that since philosophy and more importantly self knowledge, I have a new vigour for painting and drawing again. I guess I'll just have to wait and see where it takes me..