I think this was probably the most interesting reading we've had so far. I think part of that was because there was almost no mention of drugs. How refreshing! It was so very interesting to consider the part that illness can play in creativity. The majority of the artists that Hughes cited were household names and he listed so many with each example.

Hughes starts off by stating that, "Creativity appears to encompass the concepts both of disease and of cure." (p.117) Some artists are driven to their art because of their disease because they have no other way to constructively deal with it. They find ways to express the pain the experience, using poetry, painting, composing, etc., as an outlet. Others create during periods of altered states resulting from fevers, delerium, etc, all of which heighten creativity. (p.118)

I am nowhere close to being what most people would call creative. I don't paint, draw, write poetry, play an instrument..........nothing. For some time, I experienced depression myself. Medication wasn't really helping, nor was therapy. When I was at my worst, I felt that if I just had some sort of creative outlet, it would help. I felt that there was so much "stuff" built up inside of me that had to come out, and it wanted to come out in some sort of creative way. I tried to write, but it just didn't work. Obviously, I found ways to deal with it, and brought myself out of it, but I can sympathize with artists in the same boat. Hughes states that "inner conflict is often seen as the cause of creativity itself." (p.119) I have to disagree. I don't think that creativity is born out of illness, but if the creative "seed" is there, the artist can develop it and use it to deal with the illness. Just because someone can express themselves through painting or writing, though, doesn't mean that they will be able to conquer the illness. I think that it just helps them to deal with it, and to fend off the demons, at least a little bit longer.

I find another point that Hughes makes to be really interesting. He says, "The idea that certain illnesses confer creativity has been reversed in recent times to suggest that creativity confers the illness. The comparatively recent discovery of the link between emotional states and the immune system.....provides this problematic proposal with scientific backing." (p.122) People who are depressed or otherwise less emotionally well, are often more sickly than the psychologically healthy. It's something I think that we all notice, and to know that there is a scientific link is reassuring. Again, when I was suffering from depression, I didn't always feel physically well either. When people are emotionally un-well, I think they tend to neglect their diet and personal care, which makes them more vulnerable to illness.

I wonder about some of this. If a person is ill and the illness causes them to be creative, to the point of achieving success, would such a person necessarily WANT to get well? I certainly hope so, but I wonder if some get caught up in the creativity (their method of coping), to the point that they lose sight of what it really means to be well, and give up on the idea of going back to that state.