Creativeness, Genuiness And Mental Health

CREATIVENESS, GENUINESS AND MENTAL HEALTH tm. © 2007

by

Paul Henrickson, Ph.D. © 2006

When Herbert Mazlow came up with the idea that mental health was a precondition to creativity it seemed perfectly obvious to me that that was true, but in reserve, I held the idea that creativeness was an antecedent to mental health, that is that the individual creates himself into the balance that he is…at whatever the moment. But, I might add, the creative mind that seeks a balance, and that is what the creative mind does, must possess the ability to be flexible in its approaches to the reality it perceives. When Peter Shaffer, the author of the book “Amadeus” and the screen play by the same name explained that those were fictional works based on the life of Mozart my acceptance of that statement was only provisional*. A serious biography that simply lists the chronological events in an individual’s life lacking any of the interpretive glue that makes that list meaningful would be dull reading for even the least demanding. Besides, I thought, the author becomes an actor in the life of the person he is writing about. In the instance of “Amadeus”, however, there may be other factors involved as one of the criticism of the script was that Antonio Salieri comes off very badly in the film and that available biographical evidence on him would not support the interpretation that he was a frustrated, malicious, envious and uncreative composer. The matter of judging his creativity, however, is quite a problem for me as I feel my competence to be insufficient; nevertheless, I also feel that it is maturing. This admission, I am aware, raises questions of the legitimacy of judgments as they are reflections of the times in which they are made. Such difficulties should not, however, keep us from making them. It is not a shameful thing to be wrong, it is only shameful not to correct it. Denis Dutton of the Philosophy Department at Christchurch New Zealand was also helpful when he titled one of his pieces “Aesthetics and Evolutionary Psychology”. This resonated very clearly as something I should check out. The opening sentence of the second paragraph reminded me of the ways Aristotle differed from Plato and seemed more accepting of differences between human beings. Plato’s condemnation of music as a form of expression threatening to the state did not reassure me, although, even on my first reading I sensed that his analysis was correct, and that only his conclusions did I find unacceptable.

It was the way Cutton worded this reminder, I believe. That turned the key for me. He sort of turned the garment inside out by calling the reader’s attention to the fact that art forms that never change would suggest a human psychology that never changed. In short, what this is saying to us is that it is unreasonable to expect art forms to remain the same if the people creating them are changing. Or, to extrapolate on that a little, since change is with us all of the time, even the dead change, it is the fact of change with which new must deal. How we deal with change becomes the critical issue. It is also apparent that when issues are in flux they are capable of being influenced. Avoiding the opportunity to enrich an ultimate resolution makes one guilty of nonfeasance. Nonfeasance is a denial of life and a choice that the changes that will occur should go in the other direction. I would also suppose that since change is always with us, and the tides come in and go out that this explains that we must, after more than 2 and ½ millennia, be reminded of something we knew then and had seemingly forgotten. All in all what seems to be of penultimate value is that some of us keep thinking and be willing to offer first aid to those who seem to have forgotten how. Over the years I have observed, both in my work, the creative works of others, and in my psychological research and related discoveries that everything evolves, now, whether that evolution is a characteristic factor of the subject understudy or whether, as one studies the subject, one’s point of view changes, or, perhaps, even more interestingly, both the subject under study and the one studying the subject are concurrently in a stage of flux and, consequently, absolutely no conclusion has a right to be one, that is, a conclusion, an ending…at least for not longer than a few seconds. More than forty years ago when I took courage to spy on the enemy camp and started my work at The Bureau of Educational Research at the University of Minnesota under E. Paul Torrance I relatively soon came to the conclusion that in spite of the impressive, and in some cases agreeably beneficent, conclusions these august monarchs of the fields of psychiatry and educational psychology would never actually be able to define, that is to say, to delimit, that critter. He, the creative mind, would always elude them. Like the child’s game of “tag”, the benefit, or reward, is not the capture itself, but the chase. It is in the chase that one’s perceptions are most keen. One of the more intriguing questions that arose while viewing “Amadeus” was how was it possible for a person, such Salieri, to recognize a high degree of creativity in Mozart, in fact, the scene on the film seemed to say “higher than his own”. The implied comparison is what really called my attention, for I wondered how Salieri could have recognized excellence and not, at the same time, recognize how it was that Mozart had achieved it… and just what was it, exactly, that was excellent? Having already been a highly recognized and successful composer in his own right by the time he had met Mozart how was it possible for Salieri not to have made that intuitive leap that would have allowed him to understand that it was only their ways of perceiving their musical realities that made the difference. The very nature of musical studies, at the time,

required intensive training in the various areas of expertise and there was a structured curriculum which both Mozart and Salieri had experienced. In that way they started on the same level. Their attitudes towards authority, musical authority in this case, seemed to make all the difference. So, given, one presumes, an equal understanding of musical fundamentals what factor played a roll in Mozart’s assumed, according to the film character, Salieri, greater creativeness?

It is difficult to believe that a talent, like that of Salieri, could possibly have been influential in the later work of his students such as Beethoven, Lizt, Mayabeer and Czemy without, himself, possessing some significant insight into what music was all about. My conclusion, temporary one, of course, is that Salieri as well as being well-grounded in musical matters was, fortunately, a balanced observer. He thus was able, as well, to see that Mozart, in his ebullient, nervously baroque nature was more apprehensive of censor and reprimand and did all he could to avoid it in his relationships with his father, the Emperor and even the Musical Director Count Orsini-Rosenberg who, it seems, in the film, at least, was never moved acceptingly by Mozart’s passionate and somewhat childish ploys. The film presents the Count as being unresilient and very much the authoritarian, the type of personality that could very easily be annoyed by the egocentric behavior of someone thrilled by his own abilities. I do not blame either one of those personalities. Both their responses seem perfectly genuine to me. *I have only a commercial video tape of “Amadeus” to work with now, but even it has proved to be a rich source for further questioning, research and enjoyment. The creative and intellectual spin offs from works of art are an endless source of fascination for me.

.