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?
Maybe we give too much weight to a person’s job title when we’re analyzing someone’s foibles. I’m hardly the first to point this out, but often times, a title leads us to conclude certain things based on the title. So there are a lot of mentally tortured people out there–but if they’re artists, then we try to associate that torture with the art/artistic temperament. If a person is a philanderer AND a politician, we tend to conclude certain things about politicians and immorality. But there are certainly plenty of fairly tortured non-artists out there, and plenty of philandering non-politicians, but the association of a particular action with a title makes us analyze what makes that job title do that particular deviant thing. I think the bottom line is that people do all sorts of wacky things, and they happen to have jobs. The jobs don’t necessarily dictate behavior; they’re just coincident with it.
Andy-I think you are right on. We all know people from many walks of life who are tortured souls for reasons that we will probably never know.
Great wisdom for one so young.
I agree! But it would be interesting to know the percentage of artists to unstable and/or addictive behavior, versus the general population.
I have often wondered about this as well. I think there has to be a degree of absolute loneliness when you become as successful as some of these people. You are surrounded by people who tell you how wonderful you are no matter what you do and there have to be times when you know it isn’t true so then you have to wonder what is true. Without someone, anyone who will be honest with you, you are alone. I think someone like Michael Jackson who was in the spotlight at such a young age had to have felt this. Had to have known that this artist part of him was only part of him but it was all anybody could see or cared about. That would be so hard to handle.
Very thought provoking article Judy. Thanks for posting a different view on things.
Thanks, Anne. I do believe the life of the artist is many times a solitary and isolating one. And you are so right, Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley (another one of my musical idols) were vulnerable, surrounded by sycophants and people who pretended to have their interests at heart, but perhaps only had their own interests at heart. I see the two of them as vulnerable. Others, like Frank Sinatra, had an inner toughness that saw them through. Perhaps they had more solid foundations. But life is difficult for the sensitive, and the cost of fame higher than we can imagine.
Excellent point, Andrew! And I really hate it when sitting around with a bunch of people, say in a book club, and they say, “Well, you know all writers are weirdos”. I guess because these people achieve fame and notoriety, it makes them easy targets.
Appreciate your point of view.