With all the hype surrounding Michael Jackson’s untimely and tragic death, the last thing anyone needs is yet another rumination on what brought it about. But I must admit that all of the speculation led me to start wondering: Can you really ever separate the artist from his/her art? In other words, is it possible to completely ignore bizarre, immoral or even just eccentric behavior and concentrate solely on the artist’s output? And how much of the artist’s behavior is brought about by his environment and how much is just the artistic personality to begin with?
F. Scott Fitzgerald, drunk and diving into fountains in Paris, trying to write with shaking hands in a desperate effort to make money at the end of his days as a scriptwriter in Hollywood; Ernest Hemingway and the cursed affliction; his eventual suicide. Oscar Wilde and his promiscuity and debauchery, stoned in the opium dens of London; Elvis Presley and his handlers, his isolation, his eventual dependence on drugs that led to his own untimely death.
Even the more “normal” of the artistic set seem eccentric at best. J. D. Salinger a famous recluse; John Cheever, trying to seem like he fit into the suburban milieu he so brilliantly portrayed, yet utterly miserable, drunk, hiding his sexual orientation. Even Anne Tyler is shy to the point of social isolation.
Is this the price the brilliant and gifted pay for their art? Or does the artistic process lend itself to the behavior? In other words, does the propensity to create art by necessity come of an introspective, tortured soul who can find solace only in drugs or alcohol?
Maybe it’s too much early success, followed by the almost unbearable stress of having to equal that early success. But no, there are exceptions to that theory everywhere, the most famous probably being Vincent Van Gogh. His work was scorned in the art world during his lifetime, leading many to speculate that this was the cause for his addiction to absinthe and his subsequent almost psychotic behavior. Who knows what could have happened if he had succeeded, early on? He may not have lived to create most of his immortal works.
This may be akin to asking the proverbial question, which came first, the chicken or the egg? But it is definitely interesting to think about. So many examples of tragic and artistic temperaments come to mind, I would bore anyone who made it this far in my blog. But I invite speculation. Is it pre-ordained that the artist suffer for his art?