“A courageous and free spirit, in the presence of a mighty foe, in the presence of a sublime misfortune, and face to face with a problem that inspires horror — this is the triumphant attitude which the tragic artist selects and which he glorifies.” - Friedrich Nietzsche
Telling a group of impressionable teenagers- drama students at that- that “trauma is good for art” is perhaps not the wisest thing to say. Yet my teacher did start an idea rolling: why do we equate art with trauma, or, more specifically, why do we equate trauma with good art?
Take Vincent van Gogh.
What do we think of when we think of him?
Maybe as one of the best artists?
As a leader in the Post-Impressionist movement?
Cut off his own ear?
His depression?
His suicide?
He is what we think of when we think of a tragic artist and tragedy is what we think of when we think of van Gogh.
It seems to be inevitable that we turn to this stereotype, but how come this tragedy dominates conversation about him? Why is he confined to this? Every essay, article, exhibition, Instagram post reminds the viewer of his tragic story, as if this is all we have to say about.
First of all, tragic artists are made, not born. They are not made during their lifetimes, but afterwards- the tragedy we are talking about is post humorous, inflicted on their legend by an observer.
Van Gogh’s biographer, for example, was his part-time friend part-time enemy Paul Gauguin. Considerable evidence has suggested that, when writing van Gogh’s biography, Gauguin exaggerated his friend’s mental condition, twisting him into a crazed madman who needed saving by Gauguin, who needed him to kindle his talent into the luminary we know of today.
As we can see, the twisting of van Gogh into the prototype tragic artist was for the benefit of another. He himself had no say it in how his life represented and herein lies the real tragedy as he had no control over how is portrayed after death.
What makes the tragic artist stereotype?
Eccentricity and unconventionality (typical of the artist stereotype itself)
Exceptional art
and,
A tragic life story
These 3 points are seen as having been linked, with the this life story is painted as having been dedicated to art, with all their trauma and suffering for the sake of art- it’s with it that they can make their best work, as they channel all their tragedy into a piece. And this is how they become world renowned.
As people view these pieces with the prior knowledge of the artist’s prestige as well as tragedy, they too see something very great and very sad. What is the connection? Does sad art make good art?
The origins of the tragic artist explains this link between sadness, greatness and the artist.
First of all, it’s difficult to pin down something like this. I was inclined to think it was a very modern phenomena at first, but then I thought about how sadness has permeated art history’s most prolific works, not just in visual art, but in music and theatre among others as well.
Tragic plays are the best example, the likes of Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Oedipus, Medea and Antigone. In Ancient Greece, the genre of tragedy was developed for the festival of Dionysius. This was the Greek god who embodied the extremes of emotion, not just joy, but also anger and sadness, as opposed to the emotional restraint that Apollo represented. This duality represents our emotional lives: typically restrained until we are witness to a tragic scene in a film or other sort of media. Here we feel a cathartic release of emotion, at the death of a character and the tragic crux of the plot.
It’s this Dionysian release of emotion, of catharsis from the restraint of everyday life that draws us in, complete with beautiful visuals that romanticize these tragic emotions, such as the lovers’ suicide in Shakespeare’s play. The story itself romanticizes suffering, as it always has purpose, they’re not just wallowing teenagers, but tragic heroines with a set fate.
For the tragic artist, their life can be romanticized to fulfill this story as well, with their suffering having the ultimate goal of creating beautiful art.
Furthermore, these tragic figures have remained popular subject matter in paintings and the life. Jesus, for example, whose death on the cross is one the most popular subjects in European art history. Even depictions of the Madonna and Child are marked with the inevitability of her son’s death as she gazes into the distance, glass-eyed, already knowing of her son’s fate.
The figures in tragic art give themselves up for something larger than themselves: for humanity, for love and for art.
Herein lies the tragic artist’s set destiny.
Figures like Sylvia Plath and Kurt Cobain are idealised in this way and have become emblematic figures for the tragic artists. Their mental illness is romanticised as being for an artistic purpose.
A link between art and mental health, perhaps?
Munch, for example, was worried that if he were to loose his mental illness, he would cease to have any artistic talent.
Issues in personal and mental lives can become fodder for art, as people can use their practice as a way of catharsis, which can also be used by the viewer for the same effect.
But the issue is that people speak about these artists in terms of their tragedy, so much so that their personal life eclipses their talent. Their creative work suddenly becomes strictly autobiographical. Can we ever look at van Gogh’s ‘Wheatfield with Crows’ and see it for what it is: a field? Rather than seeing tragedy on the horizon as this was his last piece?
Whilst it could be argued than we need this information to contextualise the pieces, it appears to me that this should be distinct from personal, purely emotional reaction to the piece as we instead view the work in light of his life and death. His mental health issues become all that we see in his work, but this could be inevitable considering the links between art and mental health.
Multiple factors of the art profession can be seen as leading to increased ill mental health:
Frequent rejection
Low wages, financial insecurity
Hectic schedule
High pressure
Potentially be alone for hours on end
Whilst studies have shown that people with mental health issues are more drawn to art, perhaps for the possibility of creative expression, this isn’t to the extent of fate that is associated with the tragic artist archetype.
Sadness and greatness
A study showed that participants, when told that van Gogh cut off his ear, would look at his work more favourably. The authors of this study suggest that this is evidence of confirmation bias, of the artist as eccentric and unconventional. I would take this a step further and say that this also the confirmation bias of the artist as tragic. When looking at the painting after hearing of van Gogh’s tragic act, the viewer would see his tragic life story reflected in the painting itself, thus see a cathartic release of emotion that we too crave. We feel we understand, but we also feel this tragic piece is deeper in meaning and thus of substance. Herein lies the greatness.
Conclusion
But, just as a painting is an illusion of light and form, maybe this an illusion of emotion and imagination. The tendency to equate greatness with tragedy limits our understanding of the work at hand. As I have stated previously, this leads the artist’s personal life to eclipse their talent, not just of the individual involved but also on a wider scale as we search solely for sadness in the artist’s work and biography, equating this aspect with greatness. It’s through our hyper-fixation on the sad in the artistic that these artist’s lives have become tragic plays and we are no longer just spectators, but the writers.
Takeaways:
We limit out understanding of art by seeing it solely through the idea of the tragic artist
Tragedy has been present in art for a very long time
The biographies of ‘tragic artists’ focus too much on their tragedy
There are links between art and ill mental health
Sad art does not equal great art
Questions to consider:
Is there an opposite stereotype/ effect to that of the tragic artist?
Do you think that, even without knowledge of van Gogh’s ill health and suicide, we would still see sadness in his work?
What do you think should be the balance between a purely personal reaction and a contextualised reaction to a piece of art?
Resources used and resources if you want to learn more:
Currently reading: The People in the Trees by Hanya Yanighara, A History of Art History by Christopher S. Wood
Random recommendation: The film ‘I’m a Cyborg, but that’s OK’