I have to say, I can't help thinking the author doesn't know anything about Hemingway or Picasso. Both are very famous examples of how depression can be creative. You can name many others like Virginia Woolf or Emily Dickenson.
I think both depression and exuberance can be creative, albeit creative in different ways. Exuberance is very good for, as the author notes, divergent thinking. You simply have the ability to come up with so many positive possibilities. Depression on the other hand is very converging. You just know for sure that something bad is going to happen.
EDIT: I should add that Hemingway at least was likely bipolar. So it may very well be that he's a good example of how both depression and exuberance can be creative.
As someone with clinical depression and who is also a writer: this is purest self-fulfilling, self-indulgent bullshit, and exactly the kind that kept me bound to my own illness for over a decade.
Depression does fuck all either way for creativity, but what it is very good at doing is making sure you're afraid to be rid of it lest you lose that, all the while actually serving to make every creative act an uphill battle you will probably lose. Getting out from under that rock produced the finest and most productive creative phase of my life.
The myth of the tortured artist is one of the ugliest in modern culture. Go look at the lifestyle indulging that produces, and tell me that's a good route to creativity with a straight face. Because I will grant it one concession: guilt and self-recrimination can indeed be a pretty powerful quality control measure, but it is also a short jaunt from there to self-destruction and even suicide. Hemingway drank himself to death. Woolf drowned herself. I'm pretty sure you could lose count inventorying the lives of musicians who've spiraled down that hole.
As far as I'm concerned, this romanticism for depression is no less destructive and unhelpful than "pro-ana" boards; it is an enabling fiction for the mentally ill, and nothing more.
The article actually barely touches on positive thinking. The more important factor is divergent thinking. I suspect the article's title is designed to generate interest.
So, you decided to read the article calling people to "cheer up" as something that is addressed only to depressed (and as such futile).
Because, really, it's only people who are depressed that don't cheer up, and nobody else is moody/grumpy with no reason and could use the advise, right?
Think of the second example you give: "Are you in a wheelchair? Get up and walk around!"
If the article had "Get up and walk around!" as the title (in the same way this has "cheer up") would you take it as addressed to people in wheelchairs?
What about all the sedetary people that sit in front of a PC or on their couch 24/7 but are PERFECTLY capable of getting up and walking around? The article would be obviously addressing them in that case.
So why read this title as addressing "mentally ill/chemically imbalanced" depressed cases?
It's different! Not being creative isn't the opposite of being cheery. The assumption is that the reader may not see any connection at all between happiness and creativity, and that the association might provide some insight. Though if you're like me and are only happy when you are able to create things, I can see why you would be irked.
>Bilder offers up one last bit of practical advice: Just get your ideas out there—on paper, on canvas, out of your head.
This is why a lot of creative keep a "brainjuice" file full of half-cooked ideas they can later dip into. When you have some creative energy, its easy to just dump it out and then, later, when you're in a more sober and productive mood, start implementing those ideas in an effective manner. Or as writers say: write drunk, edit sober.
This is exactly how I make music. There's three distinct steps, sound creation, arrangement, and mastering. Usually I don't spend more than 15-30 minutes on any one track and sometimes as little as 5-10. But I have a huge pile of unfinished work in various stages, some I never get back to, but some I finish happily enough. My key to creative happiness is to be entertained, engaged, and moving forward.
As a 'creative' of many years (not all of them public), I have folders and folders of dead ideas I never used, many of which I agonized over for weeks and even months to no actual productive end.
Kurt Vonnegut famously said that the reason he invented Kilgore Trout and his stories was that he loved coming up with the short little SF parables, but that writing them out was just rubbish and usually not as good as the core moral itself.
That said, you can do yourself a lot of harm dwelling on never-finished ideas; at some point you have to learn to buckle down and commit to something. You'll never finish a thing, until you finish your first thing. But once you do, you'll finish another and another, and you'll keep finishing things only as long as you keep finishing them.
Hemingway, Sylvia Plath, Larry David, Kafka, Schubert, Heraclitus, Beckett, Beyonce, William James, Henry James, David Foster Wallace, Winona Ryder, HP Lovecraft, Mozart, Oppenheimer, Rilke, Celine, Faulkner, Baudelaire, Newton, Nietzsche, Rachmanioff, Craig Ferguson.
One of the main thrusts of the article, that incubation of ideas often occurs during divergent thinking, does not entail that one must be in a cheerful mood (in fact, one could view many forms of depression as extended periods of divergent thinking), despite the study referenced therein, which claims "People are more likely to maintain broader attention and solve problems when they’re in a positive mood." Moreover, the studies represent data on a statistical average (and probably apply largely to settings conducive to such studies, like sorting blocks, or playing Jenga in a novel way), while many historical examples of creative minds suffered prolonged periods of depression.
Finally, I wonder, how many man-hours have been wasted on clickbait?
A lot of nice information in the article. I think people can be more creative than they realize if they (1) legitimize associative thinking (this is what I translate "being uninhibited" to mean) and (2) insist that they have a basic capacity for being creative. Creativity often does not come immediately when you want it, so (IMO) when it does not, you have to insist you still have the capacity rather than treat that as a failure and give up.
To cheer up, fix your environment. (And your health.)
Most of the unhappiness I've encountered has related to poor environment. Wear and tear over time brought on increasing poor health -- another significant factor.
Meantime, I had people telling me I simply needed to "adapt". Consistently, I was supposed to change in order to meet their goals.
It was the rare person who simply took me as I am and genuinely sought to work with that to mutual advantage. Those people and occasions were some of the most productive of my life.
A consequence of all this, is that I tend to think quite poorly of most prescriptive advice. When people are all busy talking at you, they're hardly ever actually listening to you.
Decent article. Appalling title. There was essentially only one paragraph that dealt with the importance of a positive mood on creativity. The article outlined many other more important factors.
>> After all, creativity may be the key to Homo sapiens’ success.
Unlikely. Creativity in this context is only useful when it's about problem solving. Otherwise it's about art at most. And problem solving may or may not be creative. Point - problem is gone, everyone can move on.
One thing the article gets right I believe is that highly creative people are annoying, almost psychotic individuals. It can't be otherwise. If they cared what other people thought as much as the rest of us do they'd self-censor their ideas.
This article reminds me why I don't like working in a busy office. For me, it's very hard to get into divergent thinking mode with other people around.
And with this added element, we got the missing link between "To Be More Creative, Cheer Up" and "Feeling Sad Makes Us More Creative".
On one hand, drinking will cheer you up. On the other hand, it will also make you feel miserable.
Add to that the fact that boredom is one of the top reasons to drink and we have a link with "How Boredom Can Boost Creativity".
To quote Bukowski:
"That's the problem with drinking, I thought, as I poured myself a drink. If something bad happens you drink in an attempt to forget; if something good happens you drink in order to celebrate; and if nothing happens you drink to make something happen."
[+] [-] j_baker|11 years ago|reply
I think both depression and exuberance can be creative, albeit creative in different ways. Exuberance is very good for, as the author notes, divergent thinking. You simply have the ability to come up with so many positive possibilities. Depression on the other hand is very converging. You just know for sure that something bad is going to happen.
EDIT: I should add that Hemingway at least was likely bipolar. So it may very well be that he's a good example of how both depression and exuberance can be creative.
[+] [-] jarcane|11 years ago|reply
Depression does fuck all either way for creativity, but what it is very good at doing is making sure you're afraid to be rid of it lest you lose that, all the while actually serving to make every creative act an uphill battle you will probably lose. Getting out from under that rock produced the finest and most productive creative phase of my life.
The myth of the tortured artist is one of the ugliest in modern culture. Go look at the lifestyle indulging that produces, and tell me that's a good route to creativity with a straight face. Because I will grant it one concession: guilt and self-recrimination can indeed be a pretty powerful quality control measure, but it is also a short jaunt from there to self-destruction and even suicide. Hemingway drank himself to death. Woolf drowned herself. I'm pretty sure you could lose count inventorying the lives of musicians who've spiraled down that hole.
As far as I'm concerned, this romanticism for depression is no less destructive and unhelpful than "pro-ana" boards; it is an enabling fiction for the mentally ill, and nothing more.
[+] [-] andrewfelix|11 years ago|reply
It's a stupidly misleading title.
[+] [-] kevin_thibedeau|11 years ago|reply
That probably had more to do with their substance abuse.
[+] [-] jackmaney|11 years ago|reply
"Are you depressed? Cheer up!"
"Are you in a wheelchair? Get up and walk around!"
"Struggling with money? Try not being so poor!"
The title of that article makes me unreasonably angry.
[+] [-] coldtea|11 years ago|reply
Because, really, it's only people who are depressed that don't cheer up, and nobody else is moody/grumpy with no reason and could use the advise, right?
Think of the second example you give: "Are you in a wheelchair? Get up and walk around!"
If the article had "Get up and walk around!" as the title (in the same way this has "cheer up") would you take it as addressed to people in wheelchairs?
What about all the sedetary people that sit in front of a PC or on their couch 24/7 but are PERFECTLY capable of getting up and walking around? The article would be obviously addressing them in that case.
So why read this title as addressing "mentally ill/chemically imbalanced" depressed cases?
[+] [-] denova|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spaceshipdev|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drzaiusapelord|11 years ago|reply
This is why a lot of creative keep a "brainjuice" file full of half-cooked ideas they can later dip into. When you have some creative energy, its easy to just dump it out and then, later, when you're in a more sober and productive mood, start implementing those ideas in an effective manner. Or as writers say: write drunk, edit sober.
[+] [-] kleer001|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jarcane|11 years ago|reply
Kurt Vonnegut famously said that the reason he invented Kilgore Trout and his stories was that he loved coming up with the short little SF parables, but that writing them out was just rubbish and usually not as good as the core moral itself.
That said, you can do yourself a lot of harm dwelling on never-finished ideas; at some point you have to learn to buckle down and commit to something. You'll never finish a thing, until you finish your first thing. But once you do, you'll finish another and another, and you'll keep finishing things only as long as you keep finishing them.
[+] [-] anapparition|11 years ago|reply
Hemingway, Sylvia Plath, Larry David, Kafka, Schubert, Heraclitus, Beckett, Beyonce, William James, Henry James, David Foster Wallace, Winona Ryder, HP Lovecraft, Mozart, Oppenheimer, Rilke, Celine, Faulkner, Baudelaire, Newton, Nietzsche, Rachmanioff, Craig Ferguson.
One of the main thrusts of the article, that incubation of ideas often occurs during divergent thinking, does not entail that one must be in a cheerful mood (in fact, one could view many forms of depression as extended periods of divergent thinking), despite the study referenced therein, which claims "People are more likely to maintain broader attention and solve problems when they’re in a positive mood." Moreover, the studies represent data on a statistical average (and probably apply largely to settings conducive to such studies, like sorting blocks, or playing Jenga in a novel way), while many historical examples of creative minds suffered prolonged periods of depression.
Finally, I wonder, how many man-hours have been wasted on clickbait?
[+] [-] rbrogan|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Intoo|11 years ago|reply
Just above in the news someone posted an article about being more creative when sad. Which one is wrong?
[+] [-] shepardrtc|11 years ago|reply
Feeling happy can motivate you to try things that make you happy.
[+] [-] sarciszewski|11 years ago|reply
Yes.
[+] [-] pasbesoin|11 years ago|reply
Most of the unhappiness I've encountered has related to poor environment. Wear and tear over time brought on increasing poor health -- another significant factor.
Meantime, I had people telling me I simply needed to "adapt". Consistently, I was supposed to change in order to meet their goals.
It was the rare person who simply took me as I am and genuinely sought to work with that to mutual advantage. Those people and occasions were some of the most productive of my life.
A consequence of all this, is that I tend to think quite poorly of most prescriptive advice. When people are all busy talking at you, they're hardly ever actually listening to you.
[+] [-] jganetsk|11 years ago|reply
Well, which is it?
[+] [-] beobab|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewfelix|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barrystaes|11 years ago|reply
Feeling Sad Makes Us More Creative (wired.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8915681
[+] [-] dspillett|11 years ago|reply
From those results we could make one of three conclusions:
* Any sufficiently strong emotional response inspires creativity
* Different people respond to different emotional queues and the studies had samples of people biased in different directions
* It is all a load of bunkum.
[+] [-] spanko_at_large|11 years ago|reply
http://www.wired.com/2010/10/feeling-sad-makes-us-more-creat...
Clearly everything boosts creativity
[+] [-] exo762|11 years ago|reply
Unlikely. Creativity in this context is only useful when it's about problem solving. Otherwise it's about art at most. And problem solving may or may not be creative. Point - problem is gone, everyone can move on.
[+] [-] ytturbed|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] collyw|11 years ago|reply
"Feeling sad makes us more creative", "How boredom can boost creativity", and this one, "To be more create cheer up".
[+] [-] hugs|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] contingencies|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] palmer_eldritch|11 years ago|reply
On one hand, drinking will cheer you up. On the other hand, it will also make you feel miserable.
Add to that the fact that boredom is one of the top reasons to drink and we have a link with "How Boredom Can Boost Creativity".
To quote Bukowski: "That's the problem with drinking, I thought, as I poured myself a drink. If something bad happens you drink in an attempt to forget; if something good happens you drink in order to celebrate; and if nothing happens you drink to make something happen."