If art all you can contemplate doing without going crazy (or crazier), then the correlation is very high indeed.
I completely agree that there is no need to lead a tortured life in order to create art. I would however suggest that anyone who completely dismisses the role of self-doubt, etc., has never encountered many artists.
What on earth does self doubt have to do with art? I said earlier that the music I write is written because
I like it. If I come up with a sequence of notes (or whatever) that I don't like, it doesn't get anywhere. The stuff that gets developed is the stuff I like - if the development goes well and I continue to like it, then I get a result. If the development doesn't go well, then it gets dropped, perhaps to be revisited another time, when my head is in a different place and conducive to a fresh inspiration.
Dropping a tune that I initially thought could be a goodie gives me no trouble whatsoever. There is nothing to doubt - in
my mind, at any rate. Maybe this self doubt thing is about what's in other people's minds - will one's art be accepted, recognised as 'good', sell?
There have been times when, say, I've been playing guitar and someone has asked me to play a tune in a different way. Almost without exception, it doesn't work - the feel is lost and the soul goes out of it. The only way to make art is to make it for yourself. As far as my art is concerned, the only opinion that matters is mine. If others happen to like it, great. If they don't, then it's hardly my loss, is it?
Many of the artists I know would argue that you have already compromised your art by earning a living elsewhere.
And I would strongly disagree with them. They made their choice, and I made mine. Creating art isn't the only thing going on in this world.
I'm not saying they're right. I'm just saying that I'm hearing an odd lack of empathy (with other artists) and experience (of knowing other artists) in your responses.
Why should I have any empathy with other artists? I don't do art for the sake of feeling that I'm a member of a particular group, or that "we artists must pull together", or anything of the sort. I do, and have, known other artists, of course. Some were friends who happened to be artists, and some became known to me because they were also musicians (often a collaborative art form, so musos do tend to get together). Some were stable, sane, and happy, and some were obsessive schizophrenics. I don't recall their state of mind being neccessarily linked to the 'quality' of their art - any such notion that it was is a fallacy, since the supposed 'quality' of their art was predicated on my subjective assessment of it, regardless of where their heads were at or how they lived their lives.
And there's the rub - whether a piece of art is 'good' or not is completely subjective. You cant
tell someone to be moved by a piece of art - they simply are or they aren't. Since there is no objective standard to reach, there seems little point in trying to reach the standard of somebody else, or an abstract general standard that appeals to the public. Anyone who is trying to reach someone else's standard, whether for acceptance or to get money, rather than saying "to hell with the lot of them" and doing only their own thing, is compromising. For those that have no alternative sellable skills, I can certainly sympathise, but I can't empathise because I do have alternative skills. Same for those that think being an artist is something that they must live, sleep, eat and breath - if that approach affects their happiness, then I can sympathise, but not empathise. There is more to life than being an artist.
