ARTISTIC GENIUS
If mental illnesses are caused by pathogens, what do we make of the associations between mental illnesses and pioneers of art? Depressive illnesses, for example, are more common in novelists, painters, playwrights, and poets than in the general population. If these illnesses are caused by infection, is it appropriate to conclude that some aspects of artistic talent are attributable to infection? Did Van Gogh owe his artistic genius as much to a pathogen as to his genes or upbringing?One might argue that the causation goes the other way around, that artistic lifestyle predisposes artists to infections like the Borna disease virus. But schizophrenia, at least, develops more frequently in people who are born in late winter, suggesting not only an infection, but an infection early in life. It is difficult to believe that one’s future career will predispose one to infection as a baby. Perhaps parents might become infected if they had artistic leanings; they might then pass on both the artistic predilection and the pathogen to their offspring. Though possible, this kind of rescue seems reminiscent of the epicycles that were needed to rescue the geocentric theory of the universe.This linkage between infection, mental illness, and creativity may seem premature, considering that psychiatrists still disagree over the boundaries between schizophrenia and depressive illnesses, and even whether there is a boundary, as opposed to an indistinct merging of each into the other. Sometimes understanding the causation of illnesses resolves confusion, as it has for the different kinds of hepatitis and pneumonia. The associations between bipolar disorder and Borna disease virus and between schizophrenia and Borna disease virus, for example, raise the possibility that parts of each of these two illnesses may be manifestations of a particular infectious process, much as rheumatic fever and sore throats may be two manifestations of a streptococcal infection. Finding a common infectious cause could help resolve some of the current disagreements, which are based on alternative groupings of disease symptoms. Common infectious causes might also reveal which, if any, infectious agents are responsible for the creative aspect of mental illnesses and perhaps suggest ways to modify infections to preferentially reduce the damaging aspects of the conditions.Symptoms like hallucinations need not be regarded as a cause of artistic achievement, any more than an athlete’s injury is assumed to be a cause of athletic achievement. But getting injured is almost always part of an athlete’s experience. Having said this, however, it is important to add that injury can sometimes contribute to recognition of someone as a great athlete—an athlete who has attained victory after coping with a major injury is generally viewed as having greater talent than one who has attained the same victory without having to overcome injury. Our knowledge of Van Gogh’s mental torment makes his paintings all the more arresting. Injuries may contribute something directly to athletic achievement as well, by building a sense of character— the athlete who has successfully overcome one difficulty may be better prepared to overcome a greater one. A tendency to hallucinate or be depressed might contribute in some way directly to creativity, but the argument for infectious causation of artistic creativity does not require it. It requires only that some effect of infection has allowed the artist’s mind to deviate from the norm, and has thereby contributed to the artist’s achievement, just as the athlete’s genetic makeup and training contributed to the athlete’s achievement. The interplay between art and science may take on new dimensions as our new century progresses.*49\225\2*
