The Tortured Artist

Dear Kira,

First of all, kudos on the new hair style.

Second of all, I have to say that I quite agree with you. The 'tortured' artist is a stereotype for a reason. My theory about this idea is this: if great artists (pick your person here) were just "normal" people, living "normal" lives, what would make them great artists? What would make them special? I think that the most gifted people are also the most "abnormal", because they see the world in a certain way and perceive things in a way others do not. That is to say, if Van Gogh was a family man with a spaniel, do you think he would have been able to paint Starry Night?

I don't.

And, if he could, then, what would stop the other 99.9% of the population from painting like Van Gogh  I guess what I'm trying to say is that, if Beethoven was a "normal" (I use this word liberally) person, he would do normal things. Writing the 9th symphony is not a normal thing. I think the reverse is also true. In order to create extraordinary things, you have to be something besides an ordinary person. You have to be sort of crazy to be gifted. Not crazy crazy, more like the Sheldon Cooper brand of psychosis. I would like to argue that the nature of being a talented person is being in possession of certain natural gifts that others do not have. Which, to me, means that talented people are intrinsically, genetically different. One can argue the definition of talented, but that's not really the point I'm trying to make. What I want to say is that, in order to be a truly great artist, you must have something that distinguishes you as a human being.

Whether or not this implies suffering is up to debate, but you are correct in saying that a lot of famous artists (painters, musicians, writers, etc.) seem to have live really depressing lives. Take Eric Clapton for instance (you know my proclivity to Eric Clapton; I think he's one of the best guitarist to have ever lived - right up there with Jimi Hendrix (also a tortured artist) and Jimmy Page), the Layla album, arguably his best work, came out of heart break and heroin abuse. It's the same thing with Francisco de Goya, in my opinion one of the best painters who has ever lived (after Klimt). The Black Paintings, The Third of May 1808, and The Second of May 1808, all came out of the incredibly dark period at the end of his life, by which time he had gone deaf and experienced the Peninsular wars. Sure, his earlier paintings are happier, but these are some of the most interesting, most fascinating paintings I have ever seen.

Of course, all of this raises the question I would like to ask you: is it possible for a great artist to be ever, truly happy? Is misery a pre-requisite to great work? And, if yes, how does this affect our reading of 'happy' works of literature?

María