DO NEUROSES OR CRISES HELP ARTISTS CREATE THEIR BEST WORK? Quite some time ago I read “Equus” by Peter Shaffer. It is the tale of a psychiatrist, Dr. Martin Dysart and a 17-year old boy, Alan Strang, who blinded six horses in a small town in Suffolk, England. After reading the book, I saw the play in London. Dr. Dysart was played by Richard Burton. While this play deals with religious and ritual sacrifice themes, what impressed me most at the time and stayed with me for decades, was the idea that Dr. Dysart doubted the value of treating Alan (as well as all other children under his care), since they would simply return to a dull, normal life that lacked any commitment and “worship” (a recurring theme). Dr. Dysart struggled, throughout, with his own sense of purpose; he felt that the effect of his treatment would make Alan “normal” at the cost of his humanity and he did not want to be the instrument for this kind of change. I would like to focus here on a question that, for some, will be irrelevant and even out of context; to others, however, it may resonate deeply. I count myself among the latter. At the time of my reading the play I was struggling with emotions I could not make sense of. I felt out of place, confused. I had little inner peace. I was also an artist. The book and the play arose in me the fear that if I were in an emotionally unencumbered place, if I had no inner struggles, no existential pain, my Art would suffer or worse, it would disappear. “Normalcy” would cost me my creative humanity. Indeed, I have known artists who valued their neuroses because they felt that without them their creativity would become dull or even die. So the question is this: do artists need a little (or a lot) neurosis do create their best work or to create at all? Can an emotionally balanced, mature individual, with little to no emotional struggles, probe his/her depths for meaningful creativity? Or is the correlation of unresolved emotional conflict, etc. and great/meaningful Art a fallacy? Going on a tangent, today we can also ask: are the times we are currently living, i.e., Covid 19, country-wide demonstrations and unrest, economic collapse, uncertainty and fear, help us create our best work or do these elements stifle our creativity? Do we wrap ourselves in the silk of our cocoons and create as “before” or are we slowly, almost imperceptibly, changing as people and as artists and creating a new kind of art, less art, or a lesser art? Or a much better Art? Furthermore, who among us, artists, absolutely must have harmony, balance and more than a modicum of safety and security to create what we would consider good art? And who would thrive in imbalance, disharmony, having the rug pulled from under his/her feet – to continue to create and grow? Is our Art affected by the times we live in, is it nurtured by ideas and concepts thrown at us through the TV screen or are we anchored in our own inner harbor, impervious to the ebb and flow of the tides? When I first read “Equus” I was truly afraid of losing my creativity were I to feel emotionally anchored and serene. Today, these many decades later and never having interrupted my work as an artist, I know that I can be a better creative if I do not have to contend with emotional turmoil. At the same time I feel that since my art does not tend to reflect the headlines of the day, I must constantly nurture my inner harbor where my craving for creation is not swayed by the constantly changing weather of my environment. It would be interesting to notice the kind of art we produce at the current historic, cultural and political times. It could well be that we do not pay attention to where our painting/sculpture/symphony is springing from and we feel that we’re just having another day at the studio. Or perhaps we are very much aware of how ongoing events are affecting us and, consequently, our work. In that case, is the work better, more interesting, more

0 Comments

Continue Reading →