Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To save articles in ePub format for your eBook reader…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

To save an article in ePub format, look for the ePub reader icon above all articles for logged in users, and click it to quickly save the article, which is automatically downloaded to your computer or device. (There may be times when due to font sizes and other original formatting, the page may overflow onto a second page.).

You can also easily save to PDF format, a journal like printed format.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Wylie, M.L. Wylie, H.W., Jr. (1989). The Creative Relationship of Internal and External Determinants in the Life of an Artist. Ann. Psychoanal., 17:73-128.

(1989). Annual of Psychoanalysis, 17:73-128

II Applied Psychoanalysis

The Creative Relationship of Internal and External Determinants in the Life of an Artist

Mavis L. Wylie, Ph.D. and Harold W. Wylie, Jr., M.D.

One widely accepted notion among musicians, writers, artists, and others involved with the arts is that psychiatric treatment interferes with creativity and short-circuits, if not permanently interrupts, the artist's connection to the source of his creativity. “Keine angst, keine kunst.” No anxiety, no art.

We have become curious about the persistence of this notion, particularly as we have studied the art and writings of the Norwegian artist Edvard Munch (1863-1944). Cherishing the pain of psychic conflict for the inspiration it brought him, Munch wrote, “All art … must be brought forward with one's heart's blood” (Munch, The Violet Book, p. 29). “Life's anxiety is a necessity. Without anxiety and illness, I would have been like a ship without a rudder” (Schreiner, 1946p. 21). We believe, however, that after a period of psychiatric treatment, which dramatically alleviated his torment, Munch experienced no reduction in creative power. Nonetheless, dispute continues about the effects of the psychiatric treatment on his art. The debate centers on the marked changes in Munch's work subsequent to an extended period of residential care.

Munch's advocates (Guenther, 1976; Stang, 1979; Eggum, 1982) claim, as did Munch himself, that after treatment the quality of his creativity remained unaffected. His critics (Messer, 1973; Neve, 1974; Schjeldahl, 1974; Werner, 1979; Heller, 1984) suggest that with the cure, Munch lost his artistic vigor.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2020, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.