Introduction

The discussion of the relationship between art and madness within this thesis, is not intended to be a truly scientific work, but rather and investigative essay concentrating on providing only the most important and relevant information.

In order to avoid a probably largely fruitless discussion about what should be considered art and what should not, I will refer to creative as :

 

someone who :

• uses existing information in a new and original way
• has the ability to think productively
• is distinguished by :
  • flexibility
  • frankness
  • unconventional thinking
  • tolerance for frustration
  • the resilience to prevail against already established opinions

Hence the term art when used , only serves to illustrate the probable results of creativity.

The misuse of the term madness appears to play a fundamental role in the assumption of a relationship between creativity and madness. To this end I have asked Prof.Dr.R.Michaelis to give me a professional definition.

Here is the essence of what he told me :

The term madness is colloquial; professionals use the term psychosis. Psychosis is a serious mental disorder, which develops either :

by itself (endogenous), or as a result of for example a poisoning (organic). Endogenous psychosis is divided into two main areas: schizophrenia (split-personality) and affective illness (manic-depression). All psychosis include : disturbance of psychic functions behavioural changes patients' incapability to accept that they are ill loss of sense of reality restlessness eating disorders etc.

This definition would limit the number of truly mad artists a lot, since I suspect that the public would call nearly anyone mad who is distinctly different .