Straight Jackets, Neurosis and Poetry
i haven't had time to watch/listen to the whole chapter yet. my lunch break isn't that long, so i haven't thought through everything yet.
BUT, after reading the responses to this thread, i would be interested in finding out how many commercially successful poets/writers with some kind of depression/mental illness/hard life/general hardships there are compared to commercially successful poets/writers who live a stereotypical normal life with no history of mental illness or depression.
BUT, after reading the responses to this thread, i would be interested in finding out how many commercially successful poets/writers with some kind of depression/mental illness/hard life/general hardships there are compared to commercially successful poets/writers who live a stereotypical normal life with no history of mental illness or depression.
Anonymous
case28 said:I found this cool essay written by C G Jung about the psychology of an artist and their art, which I thought would be of interest to some poets here at Deep Underground.
The book I was reading is called Modern Man in Search of a Soul, which is a series of lectures by C G Jung. The book was published first in 1933, so it ain't exactly "modern" as the title suggests, and Jung as a writer is dry as all fuck in his delivery, but the theories and analysis Jung presents (along with Freud's) in the essay Psychology and Literature, I think, are relevant to the internal mechanics and mindsets of the few writers and creative people I've had the misfortune of meeting.
Below is a link to the Psychology and Literature, unfortunately the video is cut short, so you miss the end of the chapter.
https://youtu.be/GNx_RxZNbTg
Part 1 The Work of Art
Part 2 The Artist (starts at 34 minutes 20 seconds)
So what are your thoughts on the psychology of "the artist" and their art? Do you think (as Freud suggests) that most artists, on a personal level, are emotionally undeveloped persons with neurosis?
Do you agree or disagree that a creative person is a duality; on one side a human being with a personal life and on the other side an impersonal creative process?
And what about the view that it's essential for art to rise above one's personal life and speak from the spirit and heart of a poet and artist?
Thanks for adding this intellectual morsel to the stacks,
I think Jung was a far better Philosopher than he was a Psychologist. Of course one was borne of the other and in that day far less separable
Freud had his issues, many of them, but in a day when the emotions,
dreams, aspirations, subconscious thoughts, and deepest desires were
taboo subjects, he was a pioneer in urging us to expand our minds.
I think they both have merit and were onto something with the literature
That started the groundwork on now groundbreaking studies that can mostly be located under mad artist syndrome.
I think when pieced with the rest of the literature, the full picture suggests that
artists who arise naturally to point out to society something about itself are valuable but only stable to the extent that they can find wholeness in who they are on the multiple levels. So much on integration.
For instance, I can use poetry to either dwell in misery
or heal from it and that choice is mine.
I can then dwell in the narcissism of self revelation or work to reveal my findings to others through my words. Again, my choice.
in Freud's day, art was a way for the wealthy talent-less upper classes to avoid everything else. He had a great disdain for that.
He respected art though a great deal.
His daughter Anna Freud was a far superior Psychologist to her father.
if you'd like a link to the absolute best living philosopher (my opinion)
podcast (I listen often) I will send it. He is so good with these types of discussions..I can't get enough, I fall asleep often listening to his lectures.
He will be in tomorrows books..
The book I was reading is called Modern Man in Search of a Soul, which is a series of lectures by C G Jung. The book was published first in 1933, so it ain't exactly "modern" as the title suggests, and Jung as a writer is dry as all fuck in his delivery, but the theories and analysis Jung presents (along with Freud's) in the essay Psychology and Literature, I think, are relevant to the internal mechanics and mindsets of the few writers and creative people I've had the misfortune of meeting.
Below is a link to the Psychology and Literature, unfortunately the video is cut short, so you miss the end of the chapter.
https://youtu.be/GNx_RxZNbTg
Part 1 The Work of Art
Part 2 The Artist (starts at 34 minutes 20 seconds)
So what are your thoughts on the psychology of "the artist" and their art? Do you think (as Freud suggests) that most artists, on a personal level, are emotionally undeveloped persons with neurosis?
Do you agree or disagree that a creative person is a duality; on one side a human being with a personal life and on the other side an impersonal creative process?
And what about the view that it's essential for art to rise above one's personal life and speak from the spirit and heart of a poet and artist?
Thanks for adding this intellectual morsel to the stacks,
I think Jung was a far better Philosopher than he was a Psychologist. Of course one was borne of the other and in that day far less separable
Freud had his issues, many of them, but in a day when the emotions,
dreams, aspirations, subconscious thoughts, and deepest desires were
taboo subjects, he was a pioneer in urging us to expand our minds.
I think they both have merit and were onto something with the literature
That started the groundwork on now groundbreaking studies that can mostly be located under mad artist syndrome.
I think when pieced with the rest of the literature, the full picture suggests that
artists who arise naturally to point out to society something about itself are valuable but only stable to the extent that they can find wholeness in who they are on the multiple levels. So much on integration.
For instance, I can use poetry to either dwell in misery
or heal from it and that choice is mine.
I can then dwell in the narcissism of self revelation or work to reveal my findings to others through my words. Again, my choice.
in Freud's day, art was a way for the wealthy talent-less upper classes to avoid everything else. He had a great disdain for that.
He respected art though a great deal.
His daughter Anna Freud was a far superior Psychologist to her father.
if you'd like a link to the absolute best living philosopher (my opinion)
podcast (I listen often) I will send it. He is so good with these types of discussions..I can't get enough, I fall asleep often listening to his lectures.
He will be in tomorrows books..
Thanks miki for joining the conversation and sharing your knowledge and thoughts on the subject.
I'm definitely no expert in psychology, but I am interested in how the mind works.
I was pretty stoked when I came across the essay by Jung. I found it interesting that Jung's views bolstered the old stereotypes of the tortured artist. I agree even though a lot of Freud and Jung's views and theories are dated, they were pioneers of a science that's only just starting to scratch the surface in unlocking the mysteries of our mind, probably due to better experiments being carried out with the help from current neuroscience technology.
I'm amused by the views of psychologists and critics today, who kinda lay the boot into the likes of Freud and Jung (who himself seemed to lay the boot into Freud) for being narrow minded and somewhat extreme or extravagant in their ideas. I guess before one can totally disregard these past ideologies in psychology, consideration must be given to the state of world affairs and the social issues, such as the world wars, which would have influenced their theories and studies into the state of the human mind. The reality is that in the future, our modern psychologists of today, [I'm certain] will either be proven wrong, or in turn will be considered pioneers, with further neuroscience advancements gaining greater understanding of our minds.
Although I agree with the majority view on this thread that an artist or a writer doesn't need to be stir crazy to be creative, I do wonder, if an artist is a little bit mad or obsessive, does this give them some kind of creative edge, does this make them unique in the art world? We don't have to go far into our list of our favourite artists, writers, actors and musicians who have inspired us, to find creative minds that have been troubled with mental health issues, such as drug addiction, anxiety, bipolar and depression.
mikimoondancer said: '...artists who arise naturally to point out to society something about itself are valuable but only stable to the extent that they can find wholeness in who they are on the multiple levels. So much on integration.'
For an artist to find wholeness in who they are and especially integration, I wonder how much is dependent on being accepted by society and their peers, when, even though we have a greater awareness of mental health, it is still referred to as a 'mental health problem' and often considered a weakness by society.
And yes, miki, I'd definitely like for you to post a link to the absolute best living philosopher... I find philosophy great background noise when I'm painting my house. :)
I'm definitely no expert in psychology, but I am interested in how the mind works.
I was pretty stoked when I came across the essay by Jung. I found it interesting that Jung's views bolstered the old stereotypes of the tortured artist. I agree even though a lot of Freud and Jung's views and theories are dated, they were pioneers of a science that's only just starting to scratch the surface in unlocking the mysteries of our mind, probably due to better experiments being carried out with the help from current neuroscience technology.
I'm amused by the views of psychologists and critics today, who kinda lay the boot into the likes of Freud and Jung (who himself seemed to lay the boot into Freud) for being narrow minded and somewhat extreme or extravagant in their ideas. I guess before one can totally disregard these past ideologies in psychology, consideration must be given to the state of world affairs and the social issues, such as the world wars, which would have influenced their theories and studies into the state of the human mind. The reality is that in the future, our modern psychologists of today, [I'm certain] will either be proven wrong, or in turn will be considered pioneers, with further neuroscience advancements gaining greater understanding of our minds.
Although I agree with the majority view on this thread that an artist or a writer doesn't need to be stir crazy to be creative, I do wonder, if an artist is a little bit mad or obsessive, does this give them some kind of creative edge, does this make them unique in the art world? We don't have to go far into our list of our favourite artists, writers, actors and musicians who have inspired us, to find creative minds that have been troubled with mental health issues, such as drug addiction, anxiety, bipolar and depression.
mikimoondancer said: '...artists who arise naturally to point out to society something about itself are valuable but only stable to the extent that they can find wholeness in who they are on the multiple levels. So much on integration.'
For an artist to find wholeness in who they are and especially integration, I wonder how much is dependent on being accepted by society and their peers, when, even though we have a greater awareness of mental health, it is still referred to as a 'mental health problem' and often considered a weakness by society.
And yes, miki, I'd definitely like for you to post a link to the absolute best living philosopher... I find philosophy great background noise when I'm painting my house. :)
