If ONE MORE PERSON says “What if they’d medicated Van Gogh!?” I think I’m permitted to set things on fire. If they’d medicated Van Gogh, he’d either have painted twice as much, or he’d have been happy and unproductive. And you know what? Starry Night wasn’t worth a terrible price in human misery. It’s neat. It wasn’t worth it.
Sometimes I wonder if being an artist makes me jaded to ART. Because it’s not magic and it’s not mystical, it’s just paint or pixels. And it can do amazing things! But you don’t owe humanity to be miserable just so you can move paint around in interesting shapes. Jesus. Art is not some kind of Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas bargain where you agree to be miserable so everybody can go “oh! Neat!” for 5 minutes.
Ursula Vernon, dropping the mic. [x]
(via ooksaidthelibrarian)
I remember, a couple of years ago, Radio 4 (I think) ran a selection of Van Gogh’s letters to his brother, and one of the things I remember most vividly about them was his frustration that his illness prevented him from creating art he really wanted to create. And he wrote about his works in progress, his ideas, his inspiration, the techniques he wanted to use. Starry Night and Sunflowers aren’t the ravings of a madman that just happen to be brilliant. His paintings may have been influenced by his illness, but they weren’t products of it. They’re works by an amazingly talented, disciplined artist who managed to create them despite the illness that was holding him back. If he’d been medicated, he may well have been even more productive, and even better. And, above all, maybe he wouldn’t have killed himself.
So, yeah… people who say stuff like this can fuck right off.
(via verecunda)