Same! It's interesting to see two different perspectives on this painting so close together

It isn't a myth. Artists are scientifically more susceptible to mental illness and things. The choice is wallowing in it or using it to try and be happy. You don't have to be tortured to be brilliant but just because you are doesn't mean you are lying or following a cliche. I know you probably meant that comment nice, but it is unhelpful and untrue.

@@tobytaylor5960 Yes, it's a myth - one that the Australian Actor's union, Equity and the related Arts Wellbeing Collective has defined as one of the key myths and truisms that are unhelpful for performers. We just held a massive full day seminar here to promote wellness in our industry as performer and crew mental health is a massive problem. These types of myths and truisms do no serve us. Yes, actors are scientifically proven (there was a big study out of Sweden that used 4.4 million performers globally as a case study) that found that actors who have had formal training are likely to suffer mental health issues later in life. In other words, there is a cost to vulnerability. However, the myth that you have to suffer to create is not true. No, you don't. So we are speaking at cross purposes a little bit here, as essentially we hold a similar position. So my point is that is so great to start hearing entire unions, and high profile performers calling out the myth, and challenging it publically. It's an inspirational and a supportive message to those out there who have chosen a path that leads away from wellness, thinking they have to stay unwell to create or be vulnerable. Not true.

Matt Reis Okay so I'm not a total douche? It did comebout like, "Creating helps with your depression? That's not true just be happier!"

Emma Louise Pursey. No one is saying you can't create from happiness. But for people like me, who've held a cocked firearm to their temple, the creativity and creative process of channeling pain into art is all that keeps us from squeezing the trigger. If you want to better mental health, maybe stop telling people the way they cope is an untrue myth...just a thought. By the way, most of the artists, be it writers actors, ect, from history who are still known today, they went more in my direction.

Toby Taylor I completely agree with your view on this.

True. One example of what you say that I've encountered is the final album by the musician David Bowie. Its called Blackstar. Created during his terminal battle with cancer it towers far above most of his music from the last 30 years in its emotional depth. Listen to it a few times. Its worth it.

@@David-Field.Stuff01 I have, it depressed me immensely, but I'm glad i listened it, made me richer, bowie was one of my favorite artists, a true creator, still miss him, despite never meeting him

I agree, Bukowski's works are mostly a bunch of drivel.

Bukowski is largely misunderstood, seen more as a character than actually read for the quality and breadth of his writing. Anger and depression were only a very small part of his output and abilities.

@@steve_bal4 - Well, I’m really open to giving authors a second chance. It’s more than possible I shortchanged Bukowski owing to factors outside of his writing abilities, i.e. to his fame stemming more from his persona than from his written work, to his being suspiciously popular among genteel white boys LARP-ing at being “real,” to my own belief that most labored unpleasantness is just another lazy contrivance. So I undoubtedly bring my own baggage to reading anyone’s work; we all do! But regardless of the above, while it’s been a long time since I read Bukowski, even on a technical level I recall finding his writing rather leaden and un-engaging. But maybe I just didn’t engage with the right works? In high school I read _Post Office_ cover-to-cover. Then after college someone lent me _Factotum_ but 2/3 through I got so bored I set it aside. And I’ve seen snippets of his poetry drifting around over the years; none of it did anything for me. So is there a Bukowski book you’d recommend as being particularly representative of what you’d term the quality and breadth of his writing? I usually turn people onto Burroughs by recommending _Exterminator!_ (people always try tackling _Naked Lunch_ head-on, and that’s a mistake), and folks who can’t stand Kerouac’s _On the Road_ will often better vibe with _Satori in Paris._ Maybe there’s some work of Bukowski’s which similarly makes converts out of nonbelievers? Then again, sometimes it’s simply that oil and water won’t mix: some books are destined not to be read by some people. I’ve even met folks who passionately despise Emily Brontë’s _Wuthering Heights_ … can you believe that?? What must it be like to go through life with no soul? So maybe I’ll wind up liking Bukowski through some recommendation of yours … and maybe I’ll never like him and that’s okay: what we like can be partly culturally conditioned, partly dictated by the moment we’re in, partly shaped by the context of presentation, and even to a lesser extent partly personally subjective. We all agree people who hate _Wuthering Heights_ have no soul, but the rest could be somewhat debated.

@@danopticon Bukowski's prose was largely done to satisfy his publisher because prose outsold poetry at that time, so for me his novels are just "ok" (tho PULP is a brilliant send up of the genre, imo). My favourite is The Days Run Away Like Wild Horses Over The Hills, followed closely by Mockingbird Wish Me Luck; raw, poignant, imaginative, humourous, heartfelt, astute poetry. South of No North is good for shorter stories, and Portions from a Wine Stained Notebook, which was one of the last of his I read, surprised me in how varied the stories and essays were. It drives me nuts when I come across videos about him on KZfaq and "fans" are going on about how much they identify with his drinking and disdain for society when he was quite capable of tapping into every human condition and emotion through his writing. Imo, he was the bravest and most honest writer I ever came across, even when he was clearly having a go at the readers, or himself.

lol

Ivan Webb They mention Baudelaire and Rimbaud, both French writers/poets

will crow uh... thanks?

@@SecretGerms not exactly a response to Patton's comments, but Van Gogh gets the fuzzy end of the lolly pop every time. His work is not the result of insanity or seizures or absinthe. It's the careful study of life filtered through his own eyes, ears and emotions. Nothing about art requires anyone to be insane. Monet painted in a 3 piece suit wearing a tie an apron, sleeved cuffs and sometimes gloves. His 9-5 attitude towards work, his cleanliness and reserve all denote a personality of order and contentment. He was the chartered accountant of the art world. Yet, his contributions to impressionist art are immeasurable.

will crow Good on ya for giving information. People need more information in their existence.

he was also a lecherous drunk who used to scare the village women. just sayin'

geinikan1kan Seriously, where are you getting your info? “The village women “ . Like anyone cared about the village women back then. No one cares about women now, why would they give a fuck back then?