|
If you look at it objectively, eradicating depression would be a Very Good Thing.
Something like 20% of the U.S. population can be expected to suffer depression in their lifetimes. That's roughly 50 million people. That's a huge toll in terms of misery, not to mention more material things like lost wages.
If you look at our greatest artists, not all of them or even most of them were depressed. What we are taking for depression or other mental illness (especially in artists) was often some kind of organic disease - like syphillis - or dementia brought on by poisoning from their paints. Van Gogh is a prime example. Just because he painted beautifully, should we advocate for lead and mercury consumption to inspire art? (Read "Diary" by Chuck Palahniuk) Many of our best artists were *gasp* perfectly sane. They might have had troubles in their lives with which they dealt badly, or through their art, but I don't necessary think correlation=causation. Often, artists that did have depression or other mental illness were horrible at managing their own lives and died unappreciated, alienated, and broke - it was only after their deaths that they were recognized. Would one man's debilitating suffering be worth it so you can have a pretty Starry Night or whatever hanging over your sofa?
I don't think one needs to be depressed to be mind-blowingly creative, to have insights into the human condition, to have a vision that you want desperately to share.
__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
|