82350, you said Posted by blaksilence, Tue Oct-13-09 09:44 AM
> would Van Gogh be, >if not for what he was
i've had this argument before...
are you saying that had Van Gogh not been mentally ill, he wouldn't have produced the art he did?
i'm into biographies. i know that the majority of the artists we consider great were either mentally unstable and/or suffered immensely.
does that mean that in striving for greatness, we strive for insanity/suffering?
i'm asking more for me than you.
|