The average person on the street can probably name several famous and beloved artists who they know passed away well before they would have otherwise due to substance abuse. This phenomenon is so prevalent it has taken on an identity of its own, with the stereotype of the tortured artist who needs drugs do not only function, but as an essential element of their creative process. The question is, is there any truth to the use of drugs in enhancing artistic production and why does it seem like the most talented musicians, actors, and artists consistently suffer tragic ends from these drugs.
In order to investigate this topic, it is important to first define what exactly defines creativity. A broad definition that is easy to apply in all fields that require creativity (not just art) is making connections and synthesizing existing knowledge from various sources to create something new and innovative. Under this definition creativity encompasses artistic creativity, like when a musician writes a new song drawing on inspiration from previous songwriters, in addition to more technical creativity like when an engineer comes up with a new way to solve a problem when designing an airplane. However, an important distinction can be drawn between these two types of creativity which will become important later. Artistic creativity is deeply tied to human emotion and feelings because, at its core, art is about conveying emotions and feelings to an audience through the use of different mediums. This is in contrast to “logical creativity” which is all about identifying the most efficient and optimal solution under the given constraints. With these definitions, it would seem to be easy to identify what traits are most often associated with creative people, but the matter is much more difficult. Many have claimed that artists are more emotional and sensitive than the average person but others still contend that artists are actually feel things less acutely. Other theories include the idea that an artist has the ability to disconnect from their own experience and connect with the shared feelings and emotions that everyone recognizes in order to create universally appealing art.
To tackle the question of whether or not artists are at more of a risk of substance abuse, it is helpful to understand the myth of the self-medicating tortured maestro. Popular culture has long idolized the kind of artist who has an almost sacrificial relationship with their work, where they put themselves through unhealthy ordeals to create a magnum opus. This stereotype oftentimes involves the use of drugs especially hallucinogens and other mind-altering substances. It is difficult to determine whether these substances are more often thought of as a means of coping with the stress of creating art or as a stimulant to creativity and a way to gain a deeper connection with the artistic spirit. As to the latter claim, there is indeed evidence that mind-altering drugs can have the effect of freeing a person’s artistic restraints and enabling them to produce more innovative art. It is not hard to find a plethora of the most famous musicians on earth, such as the Beatles, who admit that they have relied on these methods to help them in their creative processes. However, before society decides to greenlight artists drug habits, it is important to mention the caveats of this creative “enhancement”. Firstly, the art produced under these drugs tends to be less logical and coherent and more appealing to the primal feelings of people. As such, it is oftentimes only enjoyable when the listener puts themselves into the same frame of mind as the artist. Additionally, these drugs tend to decrease the technical ability of the performer leading to less skillful artistic displays. While certain drugs might help an artist break the rules more freely, it is the constraints of a medium which inspire the most innovation and creativity. The effect substance has on creativity also is less applicable in the more rigid artistic mediums such as authors. One can easily imagine that the writings of an author in a hallucinogenic state would in all likelihood be unreadable.
The evidence towards the current drug habits of artists also indicates that they are more likely to use substances than the average person. There is also a correlation between artists, particularly actors and musicians, and deaths due to substance abuse also exists (study here). While this evidence might point to a greater risk of artists in regards to substance abuse, there are so many other factors at play. Many aspiring artists may simply buy into the drug-using creative prodigy myth rather than naturally discovering that these drugs help them to create. The pressure to consistently create high-quality work and the stressors that come with fame also can cause artists to become dependent on drugs for reasons that are entirely unrelated to the creative aspects of their work.
Without a long-term experimental study evaluating the effect of drugs on creativity and the success of artists, it is difficult to identify just how much of a positive effect they can have. However, the risks of these substances are gravely clear from the many artists who have suffered and died due to substance abuse. For the long term health of our society and its artists, a rejection of the heavy use of drugs and the romanization of such use in the media must be encouraged.