The Healing Power of Art is Vastly Overrated
One of the most popular misconceptions about creative expression is that it is "medicine for the soul". The theory dictates that you should go and see plays, films and art exhibitions because art releases deep spiritual blocks and makes you a more complete, balanced individual.
It's utter garbage, of course. There are lots of theatre-goers, cinephiles, art and music lovers who are unutterably miserable, aggressive, destructive or hateful.
The falsehood is even more obvious when you look at artists themselves. If you can save your soul just by looking at art, then creating it should have an even more powerful healing effect, shouldn't it?
Obviously not. Artists are not only not happier and more fulfilled than the wider population, they are almost certainly quite a bit more miserable and screwed up! You only have to look at the tumultuous relationships and drug and alcohol abuse problems of innumerable well known artists to see that this is true. And if that's what the successful ones are like, then imagine how wretched the struggling ones are!
There's already a long list of sadly destructive creative types. Just think of all those famous writers who killed themselves like Ernest Hemmingway, Virginia Woolf, and Sylvia Plath. And there were other renowned artists who killed others such as the brawling painter Caravaggio.
More recent examples include renowned rappers Biggie Smalls and Tupac Shakur. Their talent and success never gave them happiness or emotional stability. They lived violent lives, committing many crimes. Both were murdered while still very young and famous.
There's no doubt that creative expression is valuable. All societies would be a lot poorer without it. (And of course regimes that seek to outlaw it are among the most destructive on Earth!) But thinking that it is some sort of panacea for society's ills is clearly wrong. The fact that this belief continues to have so much traction is actually quite bizarre considering all the evidence against it.
It's utter garbage, of course. There are lots of theatre-goers, cinephiles, art and music lovers who are unutterably miserable, aggressive, destructive or hateful.
The falsehood is even more obvious when you look at artists themselves. If you can save your soul just by looking at art, then creating it should have an even more powerful healing effect, shouldn't it?
Obviously not. Artists are not only not happier and more fulfilled than the wider population, they are almost certainly quite a bit more miserable and screwed up! You only have to look at the tumultuous relationships and drug and alcohol abuse problems of innumerable well known artists to see that this is true. And if that's what the successful ones are like, then imagine how wretched the struggling ones are!
There's already a long list of sadly destructive creative types. Just think of all those famous writers who killed themselves like Ernest Hemmingway, Virginia Woolf, and Sylvia Plath. And there were other renowned artists who killed others such as the brawling painter Caravaggio.
More recent examples include renowned rappers Biggie Smalls and Tupac Shakur. Their talent and success never gave them happiness or emotional stability. They lived violent lives, committing many crimes. Both were murdered while still very young and famous.
There's no doubt that creative expression is valuable. All societies would be a lot poorer without it. (And of course regimes that seek to outlaw it are among the most destructive on Earth!) But thinking that it is some sort of panacea for society's ills is clearly wrong. The fact that this belief continues to have so much traction is actually quite bizarre considering all the evidence against it.