The Myth Of The Destructive Artist
Just a short writing post today, since I’m busier than a one-legged urban fantasy heroine in a leather-clad asskicking contest. (There are pumpkins to buy, after all.)
There’s a new biography of Rimbaud out, which kind of got me thinking about what Julia Cameron calls (it may not be exact, but it’s as I recall) the myth of the destructive artist. This is the cultural narrative that says artists are self-destructive, alcoholic, drug-addicted, or otherwise emotionally toxic. This narrative shows up in the way we talk about creativity, biographies of creative people, and in the destruction some creatives seem to helplessly play out despite themselves.
It seems against some sort of law to be a happy, healthy, reasonably well-adjusted creative. I think a lot of this stems from the idea that creativity or making a living at creative pursuits is somehow a violation of the Protestant work ethic. The creative life supplies “luxuries”, this way of thinking goes, so it is evil and sinful and if you engage in it, you are evil and sinful too. The tension of this unconscious assumption is large enough to indeed drive you to drink.
The flip side to this is the idea that since you’re already damned as an artist, you might as well go whole hog. And a lot of artists/creatives do. There is also the implicit assumption that “all artists are like that”, which excuses a lot of unhealthy interpersonal behavior–malignant narcissism, manipulation, double-dealing–all helped along by the idea that there are finite resources out there and artists have to fight tooth and nail for the lion’s share of them, because otherwise they’ll “lose”.
If you want to be a productive creative over a long period of time–which is, to me, the point–I think you should take a look at this unspoken assumption and a very hard look at how it affects your own assumptions about the creative life.
Creativity is not a “luxury”. It is a human birthright and a human need. You have a right to be creative, and you have a right to be a healthy, happy creative.
You also have a responsibility to take care of yourself so you can be one. Being a creative doesn’t give you a “pass” when it comes to being a decent person. It’s hard to let go of the myth of the automatically self-destructive artist, and equally hard to let go of the “oh poor me, I’m an artist so I can be an asshole to people.” Both are stumbling-blocks that get in the way of doing your (perhaps self-chosen, but no less valid) job, which is producing art.
Being self-destructive doesn’t make you an artist or a genius. It just makes you self-destructive, and lowers your chances of a long productive creative life. Now, there are valid reasons why people are self-destructive–abuse, trauma, social pressure, you name it. Therapy might be a good answer for that, and I’m not a licensed therapist. Art can even help you work through some of those issues, and it’s a time-honored way to do so.
Blindly following the myth of the self-destructive artist not only cuts your chances of being a productive creative, it also cuts your chances of being a reasonably decent human being. It’s not that I think artists are under a higher constraint of decency[1] than everyone else–it’s just that, with the massive power art has to affect the world, its purveyors are necessarily concerned with doing it the best they can. The myth of the self-destructive artist gets in the way.
What do you think?
[1] And please note that I am not using the word “decent” in the way prudes do, to beat free expression over the head. I am using it in the sense of: reasonably ethical, reasonably well-adjusted, reasonably reasonable–you get the idea.
October 25th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
My mother was gifted at drawing and oil painting. She was not self-destructive. She has not pursued her gift for 43 years now. I don’t really know why she stopped. It was her choice as my Dad never forbade it. She is the only artist I know well enough to say she’s not self-destructive. After Dad passed away I encouraged her to start in again but to no avail.
I have met some self-destructive people who were not artists, at least that I know of. The one I know the best is not that way any more TG.
October 28th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I love what you have to say except for your theory on the origin of the myth. I think that’s a load of hogwash. I’m sure you’re right that at some point the Protestant work ethic looked down on creatives, but I think that’s been over for at least a hundred years. I also think most creatives are unaware of that history.
Rather, I do think most creatives originally are drawn to creativity as an outlet for something, and frankly, most things that require indirect outlets are negative or destructive. I think the stereotype became the stereotype because there is, as in all generalizations, a kernel of truth in there somewhere. The majority of creative people I know come from dysfunctional backgrounds of some sort or have some sort of Thing in their past they can’t get around and have used their creativity to work through it, etc. Not all. But that’s with every generalization.
You could say that’s the myth being a self-fulfilling prophesy but I doubt it because most of those creatives have also *always* been creatives, and didn’t know that if they were going to be creative, they were supposed to be depressed.
But I agree with everything you said ABOUT the myth, etc. Just not the root of it.