Review

Psychopathology 2013;46:136144
DOI: 10.1159/000339458

Received: December 5, 2011

Accepted after revision: May 1, 2012
Published online: September 13, 2012

Creativity and Psychiatric Illness:

The Search for a Missing Link
An Historical Context for Current Research
E. Thys a, b B. Sabbe c, d M. De Hert a, e
a
University Psychiatric Centre KU Leuven, Campus Kortenberg, Kortenberg, b Psycho-Sociaal Centrum St.-Alexius
Elsene, Brussels, c Medical Faculty, Antwerp University, Antwerp, d Psychiatric Centre St.-Norbertushuis, Duffel, and
e
Medical Faculty, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Key Words
Creativity Psychiatric illness History Art Schizophrenia
Psychosis

Abstract
Creativity is an important human quality upon which many
achievements of humankind are based. Defined as the ability to produce something that is novel and useful or meaningful, it is difficult to operationalize for research. This text
provides an overview of the historical and cultural context of
this research. The assumption that creativity is related to psychiatric vulnerability dates back to antiquity. The modern interest in the subject stems from the romantic era and gained
a scientific aura in the 19th century. In the 20th century, a
further entanglement of creativity and psychopathology
came about through the influence of patient artists on regular art. Psychometric, psychodiagnostic and genetic research
supports a connection between creativity and psychiatric illness within the bipolar-psychotic continuum, with schizotypy/thymotypy as prototypes of creativity-related disorders. Evolutionary hypotheses link the schizophrenia paradox to a survival advantage through enhanced creative
ability. The relevance of scientific research in this complex
and heterogeneous area can be increased if creativity and

2012 S. Karger AG, Basel

02544962/13/04630136$38.00/0
Fax +41 61 306 12 34
E-Mail karger@karger.ch
www.karger.com

Accessible online at:

www.karger.com/psp

psychopathology are further operationalized and if underlying art concepts are made explicit and placed in a broader
cultural context. There is a continuing need for meaningful
definitions and measures, as well as a multidisciplinary collaboration.
Copyright 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel

Introduction

The intuition that there could be a link between creativity and psychiatric illness has a long history dating
from antiquity until the present time. Different causal
relationships have been proposed to explain this possible
link. Creative people were thought to be more at risk for
psychiatric illness; creative activity was thought to be distressing, or both were thought to rely on deeper dysfunctions, seen by some as superior qualities, by others as
manifestations of degeneration. The relevance of the
subject is sometimes questioned. However, the importance of creativity in itself cannot be underestimated;
many achievements of humankind are the fruit of the creativity of a relatively limited number of people. If this
ability is connected with psychiatric illness, then this is
an important issue.
Erik Thys
Renbaanlaan 37
BE1050 Brussels (Belgium)
Tel. +32 484 951 874
E-Mail erik.thys@skynet.be

Present-day scientific research in this domain focuses

on the link between creativity and specific psychometric,
psychiatric and neurobiological parameters. However,
these parameters are often easier to operationalize than
creativity itself. Defined as the ability to realize something
that is new and useful or meaningful within a certain social context [1], creativity is difficult to capture in a strictly formatted framework. It can be argued that the difference between meaningful and useful also marks the
difference between art (creativity per se) and more functional forms of creativity like scientific or political creativity. Reductions are necessary to quantify the elusive phenomenon of creativity, but in vitro creativity should
maintain some relevance to its real world counterpart.
In order to contextualize current research and to preserve a wide scope, this text provides a selective historical
overview of the subject. It has to be noted that the presented views only pertain to the Western world, as both
mental illness and creativity can be perceived differently
in other cultures. In many cultures, the artist is anonymous and his or her creations automatically belong to the
community, in contrast to the individualistic and famedriven Western artistic practice. Also, novelty is a highly
valued aspect in contemporary Western art and in creativity research, while it seems to be less important in
many non-Western cultures.

Creativity and Psychiatric Illness before the 20th

Century

Antiquity
Creativity had a mythical status in early antiquity. Inspiration and creation were believed to be the result of
divine intervention. In later antiquity, the divine interpretation was toned down and creativity was linked to the
personal Daimon or genius of the creative person [2].
In Aristotles era, creativity was considered more and
more as a natural, personal ability. A similar shift from a
divine to a personal phenomenon can be seen in the way
mental illness was viewed. At the same time, a connection between creativity and mental illness was noted. Plato quoted Socrates as saying that the poet has no invention in him until he has been inspired and is out of his
senses [3]. This connection was also acutely formulated
in the famous quote ascribed to Aristotle: Why is it that
all those who have become eminent in philosophy, politics, poetry or the arts suffer from melancholy, and some
of them to such an extent as to be affected by diseases
caused by black bile, as is said to have happened to HeraCreativity and Psychiatric Illness

cles among the heroes? (Problemata [4]). On closer inspection, Platos and Aristotles quotes propose different
causalities: Socrates implies that some madness is necessary for creativity, Aristotle that both are the result of an
excess.
Middle Ages
The religious overtones of the Middle Ages reinstalled
a moralistic view on illness and the divinity of inspiration
but also warned of the sin of pride that could accompany
exceptional creativity. The story of Hugo van der Goes
(14401482), a well-known Flemish Primitive, provides
an interesting case study of the medieval outlook on creativity and mental illness. Van der Goes, already a famous painter, entered a monastery in 1475 but retained
the privilege of painting and working for rich customers.
After a few years, he was struck with severe mental illness, probably major depression, with suicidality. As a fellow brother noted, God probably heaped him with melancholy to force humility upon him and to protect him
from a further downfall. Indeed, melancholy or acedia
(listlessness) was not considered a disease, but as a precursor to the capital sin of sloth. As a consequence, Van
der Goes gave up his privileges, abandoned painting altogether and died in devout isolation [4]. In this story,
mental illness is not linked with creativity itself, but with
the grandiosity that creative activity could engender, depression being a defense mechanism against it.
Renaissance
The Renaissance saw the rebirth of the concepts of Platos mad poet and Aristotles melancholic genius in the
writings of the philosopher Marsilio Ficino, who tried to
synthesize Platonism and Christianity. At a time when
the role of the artist in society was elevated, Ficino provided a philosophical base for Renaissance art [4]. However, the confrontation of the ancient Greek views on creativity and insanity with Christianity divided opinions;
for Platonists, melancholy was merely a consequence of
exploring the heights of creativity and in itself incompatible with divine inspiration, while for Aristotelians, inspiration and melancholy were intrinsically linked.
Romanticism
The modern interest in the connection between creativity and psychiatric illness is rooted in the romantic
era, when industrialization first originated and the seeds
of the alienation of modern humans were sown. As rationalism was questioned and fantasy and imagination were
embraced, many enthusiastic publications reconnected
Psychopathology 2013;46:136144

137

Color version available online

Fig. 1. Milestones of outsider art: Bildnerei der Geisteskranken by Hans Prinzhorn [6], Jean Dubuffets Lart brut prfr aux arts culturels [8], Outsider Art by Roger Cardinal [9] and the catalogue of Documenta 5 (designed by Ed Ruscha) [10].

the opposite extremes of genius and madness in an almost ideological way. The psychological suffering of artists was not only considered to be inevitable, but necessary for creativity. Extreme emotions were cultivated and
raised to the status of ultimate artistic motive, exemplified in the suicide wave after the publication of Goethes
Die Leiden des jungen Werthers (1774). In the 19th century, the link between creativity and psychiatric illness
received a scientific aura for the first time, through the
work of Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso, whose
influential best-seller Genio e Follia (1864) built on the
confused but popular contemporary ideas on degeneration [5]. Degeneration essentially referred to the acquired
yet hereditary loss of normal characteristics, according to
pre-Darwinian concepts of evolution. Lombroso stated
that genius was a form of hereditary madness. His ideas
were influential for both art theory and eugenics.

Creativity and Psychiatric Illness in the 20th Century

The Prinzhorn Collection

In the 20th century, the entanglement between creativity and psychiatric illness went even further, when
many artists sought and found inspiration in the work of
psychiatric patients. They expected to find a pristine
form of creativity there, which had been lost in the somewhat fossilized official art. After World War I, Hans Prinzhorns best-seller Bildnerei der Geisteskranken [6] became the unintended inspirational bible for many expres138

Psychopathology 2013;46:136144

sionist and surrealist artists. The adventures of the

collection of work by psychiatric patients that Prinzhorn
curated and presented in his book provide an interesting
but confronting illustration of the turbulent relationship
between art, psychiatry and politics in the past century.
Because this story is exemplary in many respects, it is
summarized below (table1).
20th Century Tendencies
Some common threads can be discerned in the remarkable history of the Prinzhorn collection, marking
the intimate association between art and psychiatry in
the 20th century.
Firstly, it can be pointed out that artwork by psychiatric patients has exerted a substantial influence on 20th
century art, among others through Prinzhorn after
World War I and the Art Brut movement after World War
II. Statements on modern art cannot escape this association between madness and modernism [7], as it is de facto connected with mental illness.
Secondly, there is the ever-returning but highly doubtful idea that creative expression by people suffering from
major psychiatric illness has a pure, pristine quality that
serves both as an observatory for the naked mechanisms
of creativity and as a source of inspiration.
Thirdly, within the heterogeneous bulk of work by
psychiatric patients, patterns were recognized that defined it as a genre in its own right (fig.1). A genre, according to some, that saw its end when antipsychotics were
introduced in the 1950s. The mechanisms of this formatThys /Sabbe /DeHert

Table 1. History of the Prinzhorn collection

1891

Start of a collection of work by psychiatric patients in the Heidelberg university hospital by its then director Emil Kraepelin.
This so-called Lehrsammlung had a diagnostic goal.

1919
1921

Psychiatrist and art historian Hans Prinzhorn (18861933) studies, inventorizes and extends the collection with the intention
to establish a museum for it. The artistic value of the works is acknowledged for the first time.

1922

Publication of Prinzhorns richly illustrated book Bildnerei der Geisteskranken. The word Bildnerei (literally: imagery or
artistry in the English translation of the book) in the title betrays the authors hesitation to consider this work as art. The
subtitle A contribution to the psychology and psychopathology of configuration refers to Prinzhorns ambition to found a
general theory of creativity on the presumed primal creativity in psychiatric patients.

1922

Dada artist Max Ernst moves from Cologne to Paris and gives a copy of Prinzhorns book to artist and ideologist Andr Breton. Together with Paul luard, Breton is working on a long and bizarre poem for which they invent the term surrealistic.
The Bildnerei becomes a great source of inspiration for them and for Max Ernst himself, who joins the surrealists.

1937

Opening of the exhibition Entartete Kunst in Munich, where modern artists are ridiculed and threatened [28]. This Nazi
propaganda operation consisting of confiscated artwork is still the most visited exhibition of modern art ever. From 1938 on,
works from the Prinzhorn collection are included in order to sarcastically infer a connection between modern art and mental
illness [29].

1939

Start of Aktion T4, the Nazi eradication programme for psychiatric patients, the handicapped and chronically ill, a precursor
to the Holocaust [30]. At least 275,000 patients are killed, among them some of the Prinzhorn artists from the Heidelberg
psychiatric hospital.

1946

Rediscovery of psychopathological art by French artists Jean Dubuffet and (again) Andr Breton, who found the Compagnie de lArt Brut [31]. The work of psychiatric patients and other non-professional artists is launched once again as a source
of inspiration and a benchmark for modern art. Remarkably, these patients are not considered to be real artists; the label art
brut is only applicable to work that is not meant to be art.

1955

The no longer complete Prinzhorn collection is stored in the attic of the Heidelberg hospital due to the renovation of the
building.

1963

Rediscovery of the Prinzhorn collection by curator Harald Szeemann, who exhibits a selection for the first time after World
War II.

1972

Introduction of the term outsider art for the artwork of patient artists by British art critic Roger Cardinal [32]. Integration
of works from the Prinzhorn collection in the Documenta 5 exhibition in Kassel in 1972, along with the works of famous artists like Joseph Beuys, Marcel Broodthaers, Marcel Duchamp, Dan Graham and Panamarenko. This exhibition signifies an
important rehabilitation of the work, even if the names of the patient artists are not included in the list of participating artists
in the catalogue [33].

From
1980 on

Selections from the collection are shown in international exhibitions, in Charleroi (La beaut insense, 1995), Ghent (Museum
Dr. Guislain, various exhibitions) and Herford (Loss of Control, 2008, curated by Jan Hoet).

2002

An association of experience experts in psychiatry stops its attempts to remove the Prinzhorn collection from the Heidelberg
hospital, linked to both Entartete Kunst and the Aktion T4, and to house it in a new museum in Berlin.

ting process are probably selection and collection biases,

the psychodiagnostic outlook on art (which the Prinzhorn collection was originally aimed at) and in the worst
cases commercial intentions.
Finally, it has to be noted that art by psychiatric patients has been instrumentalized over and over again for
various purposes: by Prinzhorn as a way to elucidate human creativity, by the Nazis as propaganda material, by
Dubuffet as a model of an art form and a philosophy that
would become the basis of his own success and by

Szeemann as a rather anonymous showcase. Of course,

these situations are very different, but the tendency toward political and artistic recuperation of Prinzhorns
and similar collections probably has to do with what is
possibly the only real common feature of this work: that
it is created by people who are unable to show, publish or
sell their work by themselves due to their illness or disabilities. They need more help than other artists to do so
and tend to develop a dependency towards their curators,
who inevitably leave their mark in the process.

Creativity and Psychiatric Illness

Psychopathology 2013;46:136144

139

The Link Revisited

After all, the question remains whether creativity is
associated with increased psychiatric vulnerability and
how this can be understood. Around this question different views have evolved, based on different concepts of
creativity and psychiatric illness. The prototypes of the
deranged artist and the visionary mental patient differ
in artistic but also in psychiatric respects. This is exemplified in the controversy between Jamison and Sass [1,
11, 12], both psychologists with important publications
on creativity and psychopathology. Jamison proposes a
link between creativity and bipolar disorder but is criticized by Sass for exaggerating this link by broadening the
disorders diagnostic criteria. Sass proposes a link between creativity and schizophrenia but receives similar
criticism from Jamison. In fact, both authors not only
have different views on psychopathology, but also on art
[11]; Jamison links a romantic conception of art with bipolar disorder, Sass a modernist outlook on art with
schizophrenia. Implicitly, both approaches agree on a
gradual causation by a certain psychological configuration that feeds creativity at an optimal level but causes
significant pathology and impedes creativity when extreme. This interesting controversy can be summarized
as shown in table2.
Another view, like that of Nancy Andreasen [13, 14], is
to associate artistic creativity with bipolar disorder and
scientific creativity with schizophrenia. Some authors
suggest a reverse association, notably Kyaga et al. [15],
who found more scientific professions in first-degree relatives of bipolar patients and more artistic professions in
first-degree relatives of schizophrenic patients.

Current Scientific Views on Creativity and

Psychopathology

The Problem of Measuring Creativity

Remarkably, the psychometric interest in creativity,
which only came about in the 1950s [Guilford in 16], did
not originate in the interaction between art and psychiatry as described above, but in the research and harnessing
of creativity in industrial processes. From the 1970s on,
interesting clinical and epidemiological research was performed in this domain [13]. However impressive, some of
these studies showed methodological limitations, for instance by building on ample but posthumously collected
descriptive data [17]. As stated above, the methodological
core problem is to define creativity in both a relevant and
quantifiable way. Most assessments of creativity can be
140

Psychopathology 2013;46:136144

Table 2. Jamisons and Sasss contrasting views on creativity and

psychopathology

Normal creativity = emotional

creativity according to Jamison

Genius = revolutionary
creativity according to Sass

Associated with bipolar disorder

Associated with schizotypy,

schizophrenia
Maladaptive, alienated
Cold, self-conscious
(Post)modern
20th century art conception
The visionary mental patient
Prototype: Adolf Wlfli
Mostly outsider art

Socially acceptable
Emotional
Romantic
19th century art conception
The deranged artist
Prototype: Vincent Van Gogh
Mostly insider art

located along the dimensions of in vivo versus in vitro

creativity and quantitative versus qualitative assessments.
An objection to real-life creativity as the sole criterion
could be that it involves other aspects than creativity
alone, like social skills, environment and opportunities.
In quantitative in vitro assessments, the number of novel
combinations of a given set of objects (e.g. a brick and a
paperclip [18]) is counted, which sometimes seems remote
to genuine creativity. On the other hand, qualitative assessments, where experts judge creativity, are limited by
subjectivity. Rather than measuring creativity itself, many
authors assess the capacity for divergent thinking, i.e. a
flexible, associative and open thinking style appropriate
for open-ended, complex problems or tasks. It is opposed
to convergent thinking, i.e. step-by-step problem solving
of clearly defined problems with only one solution. Scientific discovery requires more convergent thinking, while
artistic creation requires more divergent thinking. Adequate assessment of creativity should probably include
quantitative, qualitative, in vivo and in vitro evaluations.
Psychometric and Psychodiagnostic Approaches
Psychometric and psychodiagnostic research of the
past decade appears to gravitate towards a connection between creativity and personality traits like openness to
experience and psychoticism [16] and mild and more
stable forms of psychotic and bipolar psychopathology,
defined as schizotypy and thymotypy [19]. The data
suggest that these personality types and disorders can be
located along the continuum between schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and normality, which corresponds to current dimensional views on psychiatric diagnostics [20].
The association between creativity and schizotypal characteristics in bipolar patients further supports this diThys /Sabbe /DeHert

Color version available online

Conceptual
disorganization
Positive
symptoms

Mania

Artistic
creativity

Divergent
thinking,
empathizing

Content:
schizotypy/
schizophrenia

Thinking
style

Drive:
Thymotypy/
bipolar disorder

Convergent
thinking,
systemizing

Scientific
creativity

Fig. 2. Graphical representation of diag-

nostic dimensions and the optimal configuration for artistic and scientific creativity
(E. Thys).

mensional view [21]. Remarkably, this view also reconciles the Jamison-Sass controversy (both are right). It also
supports the observation that psychopathology displays
an inverted U relationship with creativity. And finally,
it also does justice to the Aristotelian intuition that creativity has to do with an optimal amount of a factor that
can also be pathogenic (be it the temperature or the black
bile). These elements can be tentatively summarized in
the diagram shown in figure 2, where artistic creativity
finds its place at the hypomanic position of the bipolar
dimension, the positive symptoms of the psychotic dimension and the divergent pole of the cognitive dimension. Scientific creativity seems to find its place in the
depressive bipolar position, the negative symptoms and
the convergent thinking style (fig.2).

Depression
Autism

Negative
symptoms

tradictory results as to brain locations that could be relevant for creativity (fig.3). This could mean that creativity cannot be simply allocated to discrete brain structures,
that the resolution of current neuroimaging is insufficient or that the assessment of creativity in a scanning
situation is unreliable.

Neurophysiologic and Neuroimaging Research

Currently, neurophysiologic and neuroimaging studies are not very enlightening because they produce con-

Neuro-Aesthetics
An innovative outlook on neuroscience and creativity
is provided by neuro-aesthetics [23]. This new discipline
merely considers the perception and not the creation of
art. Nevertheless, neuro-aesthetics holds the view that
the neurobiological principles of perception and creation
are the same.
The artistic experience is explained through the neurophysiology of the visual cortex [24, 25]. The artist is
thought to exploit the specific features of this system as
an unconscious neurologist [24]. Neurologist V.S. Ramachandran and philosopher W. Hirstein summarize

Creativity and Psychiatric Illness

Psychopathology 2013;46:136144

141

Color version available online

SPECT, PET, fMRI, DTI

Right hemisphere

= Possible association with creativity

Left hemisphere

Fig. 3. The many Brodmann areas that have been associated with creativity in recent neuroimaging research [22].

these features as the laws of art [26]. Examples of these

laws are peak shift (an extreme stimulus causes an extreme reaction), grouping of visual information and the
preference for bilateral symmetry.
Although it convincingly shows that neurobiological
principles govern visual perception and thus the artistic
experience, the neuro-aesthetic core principle that the
viewers perception and the artists creation are identical
cannot be maintained from the point of view of art theory [27]. Also, art cannot be reduced to facilitated visual
perception. Typically, images that are difficult to read
can be very intriguing and stimulating, and extremely
facilitated images like traffic signs are not automatically
to be considered art. Art seems to have less to do with
strict obedience to these perceptual laws than with eluding the paradigm, to put it in the words of Roland Barthes
[28], i.e. playing with these laws. Another fundamental
142

Psychopathology 2013;46:136144

objection is the focus on perception, whereas the bulk of

contemporary art is highly conceptual and is even less
reducible to visual technique than previous art forms.
For example, La Gioconda by Leonardo da Vinci (1503
1507) and Marcel Duchamps L.H.O.O.Q. (1919), a postcard of the Gioconda with added mustache and beard,
are perceptually almost identical, yet conceptual opposites.
Despite this criticism, the neuro-aesthetic principle
that art makes explicit through distortion remains valid,
even more so if also understood conceptually. Or, in Picassos words: Art is a lie that reveals the truth.
Evolutionary Hypotheses and Genetic Research
Evolutionary psychiatry proposes some hypotheses
that explain the link between creativity and psychopathology and place it in a broader context.
Thys /Sabbe /DeHert

An important starting point is the so-called schizophrenia paradox, i.e. the apparent contradiction between the continuing prevalence of schizophrenia in the
human gene pool and the low procreation rate of people
suffering from schizophrenia, given its genetic origins.
The schizophrenia paradox can be explained by the assumption that non-schizophrenic subjects are the carriers and propagators of the genetic factors that underlie
schizophrenia. That these factors did not disappear despite the disadvantages of the disorder for the patient,
the community and procreation itself could mean that
they also provide some advantage for the carriers. This
advantage could be creativity. In an impressive recent
large-scale study, Kyaga et al. [15] showed a familial
cosegregation of both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder with creativity. If schizotypy and thymotypy are associated with creativity, and as such with an evolutionary advantage [29, 30], then it can be assumed that genetically related disorders like schizophrenia continue
to exist as well, even if the patients have fewer children.
The evolutionary advantages of creativity could be the
ability to work out inventive solutions for life-threatening conditions, like the early inventions of prehistoric
humans (clothing, the harnessing of fire, tools). Other,
seemingly less functional creative abilities could offer a
survival advantage by enhancing social cohesion. Music
and dance, for instance, can literally synchronize communities, from African dance to discotheques [31]. A
third advantage could be that creative people have more
sexual partners than on average. This has been shown
by Nettle and Clegg [29], who did not investigate, however, whether this resulted in more offspring. More controversial hypotheses link the continuing prevalence of
schizophrenia with special abilities of the people suffering from schizophrenia themselves and not their relatives. The shaman theory states that visionary, psychotic individuals took the lead of early human communities
[32].
Recent molecular genetic research seems to support
dimensional diagnostics, assuming that schizophrenia,
bipolar disorder and probably autism as well are only dimensions of a continuum [33]. The hypothesis that creativity is linked with schizotypy and/or thymotypy is
compatible with this framework. This view is supported
by a study showing that the DRD2 and TPH genes are associated with creativity while also coding for dopamine
metabolism, which is central in psychosis [34], and the
recent finding of an association between creativity and a
specific genetic polymorphism that has previously been
linked with proneness to psychosis [35].

Psychosis, Creativity and Life Stage

A rarely discussed topic is the evolution of creativity
through different life stages. Apart from the exceptional
case of child prodigies, creativity seems to peak especially in adolescence. Even artists, musicians and scientists who remain active at old age often build on ideas
they developed in their adolescence. This is also the life
stage when psychosis or bipolar disorder first become
manifest, and perhaps both phenomena are somehow
connected. There are indeed many similarities between
normal adolescent behaviour and psychotic or bipolar
manifestations. Bizarreness in behaviour, dress code and
music and dichotomizing the world into good and bad
could be akin to positive symptoms. Being confused
and the creation of neologisms are similar to cognitive
symptoms. Boredom, emptiness, apathy, social isolation
and hypersomnia resemble negative symptoms. Extreme
moods can be seen in dysphoric tantrums, manic overestimation of oneself and depression. At the same time,
adolescents typically tend to innovate, be it in politics,
fashion or technologic-social phenomena like the recent
Arabic revolutions. Led by adolescents, every new generation brings about small or large paradigm shifts in
many domains. The similarities between normal and abnormal crises in this creative life stage possibly indicate
a deeper connection between the psychotic sensibility
and creativity as a motor of social cohesion and cultural
evolution.

Creativity and Psychiatric Illness

Psychopathology 2013;46:136144

Conclusion

The current literature about creativity and psychiatric

illness shows a broad spectrum of theories and approaches, with interesting diagnostic, anthropological and evolutionary implications. However, research in the field is
hampered by difficulties in defining creativity, psychopathology and also art. The concept of creativity is still in
need of a more consistent, multidisciplinary and useful
definition to enhance assessment while preserving relevance. In psychodiagnostics, the concept of the psychotic-bipolar continuum opens up interesting perspectives
but needs to be corroborated. As for art, the quest for a
definition is probably less relevant than the need for researchers to disclose and discuss their conception of art.
The Jamison-Sass controversy reveals implicit but fundamental differences in the conception of art, and in neuroaesthetics, some conceptions of art are maintained that
are untenable for art theory.

143

These conceptual problems show that more interdisciplinary collaboration is needed, as can be expected in this
border area.
Despite the remaining inconsistency of the current
findings, it seems to be a plausible hypothesis that artistic
creativity is associated with specific thinking styles that
can also be identified in schizotypy/thymotypy. This relationship seems to pertain to deeper connections; the
elements that enhance creativity (divergent thinking, un-

usual associations, maniform thought, etc.) are the same

as those that can be identified in a psychotic state. Both
creativity and schizotypy/thymotypy appear to be continuous phenomena, rooted in the human genetic material. Creativity and the psychopathology that is related to
it appear to be fundamental human characteristics that
share an evolutionary history and that are sources of both
suffering and human culture.

References
1 Glazer E: Rephrasing the madness and creativity debate: what is the nature of the creativity construct? Pers Individ Dif 2009; 46:
755764.
2 Batey M, Furnham A: Creativity, intelligence, and personality: a critical review of
the scattered literature. Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr 2006;132:355429.
3 Goodnick PJ: Mania: Clinical and Research
Perspectives. Washington, American Psychiatric Press, 1998.
4 Ksenne J: Het oorkussen van de melancholie. Gent, Museum voor Schone Kunsten
Gent, 2000.
5 Tollebeek J, Vanpaemel G, Wils K: Degeneratie in belgi (18601940). Leuven, Leuven University Press, 2004.
6 Prinzhorn H: Bildnerei der Geisteskranken;
ein Beitrag zur Psychologie und Psychopathologie der Gestaltung. Berlin, Verlag von
Julius Springer, 1922.
7 Sass LA: Madness and Modernism. New
York, Basic Books, 1992.
8 Dubuffet J: Lart brut prfr aux arts culturels. Paris, Ren Drouin, Compagnie de
lArt Brut, 1949.
9 Cardinal R: Outsider Art. New York, Praeger, 1972.
10 Szeeman H, Grterich M, von den Velden K,
Jennifer G-C: Documenta 5 1972. Kassel,
documenta, 1972.
11 Claridge G, Blakey S: Schizotypy and affective temperament: relationships with divergent thinking and creativity styles. Pers Individ Dif 2009;46:820826.
12 Dietrich A: The cognitive neuroscience of
creativity. Psychon Bull Rev 2004; 11: 1011
1026.

144

13 Andreasen NC: Creativity and mental illness: prevalence rates in writers and their
first-degree relatives. Am J Psychiatry 1987;
144:12881292.
14 Andreasen NC: The Creating Brain. New
York/Washington, The Dana Foundation,
2005.
15 Kyaga S, Lichtenstein P, Boman M, Hultman
C, Lngstrm N, Landn M: Creativity and
mental disorder: family study of 300 000
people with severe mental disorder. Br J Psychiatry 2011;199:373379.
16 Folley BS: The cognitive neuroscience of creative thinking in the schizophrenia spectrum: individual differences, functional laterality and white matter connectivity; thesis,
Nashville, Vanderbilt University, 2006, p
146.
17 Post F: Creativity and psychopathology. A
study of 291 world-famous men. Br J Psychiatry 1994;165:2234.
18 Pretz JE, Link JA: The creative task creator: a
tool for the generation of customized, webbased creativity tasks. Behav Res Methods
2008;40:11291133.
19 Nettle D: Schizotypy and mental health
amongst poets, visual artists, and mathematicians. J Res Pers 2006;40:876890.
20 Van Os J, Kapur S: Schizophrenia. Lancet
2009;374:635645.
21 Rybakowski J, Klonowska P: Bipolar mood
disorder, creativity and schizotypy: an experimental study. Psychopathology 2011; 44:
296302.
22 Thys E, Sabbe B, De Hert M: Creativiteit en
psychiatrische stoornissen: recente neurowetenschappelijke inzichten. Tijdschr
Psychiat 2011;53:905915.
23 Thys E: Kunst en het brein. Neuron 2007;12:
383391.
24 Zeki S: Splendors and Miseries of the Brain:
Love, Creativity and the Quest for Human
Happiness. New York, Wiley-Blackwell,
2008.

Psychopathology 2013;46:136144

25 Zeki S: Splendours and miseries of the brain.

Phil Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1999; 354:
20532065.
26 Ramachandran V, Hirstein W: The science of
art: a neurological theory of aesthetic experience. J Conscious Studies 1999;6:1551.
27 Van den Braembussche AA: Denken over
kunst, een inleiding in de kunstfilosofie.
Bussum, Coutinho, 2007.
28 Barthes R: Le neutre. Cours au collge de
France (19771978). Paris, Seuil, 2002.
29 Nettle D, Clegg H: Schizotypy, creativity and
mating success in humans. Proc Biol Sci
2006;273:611615.
30 Cela-Conde CJ, Lopez Arenillas C, Nadal M,
Capo MA, Cortes Mascaro A, Marty G: Creativity and evolution. Int Congr Ser 2006;
1296:95105.
31 Sacks O: Musicophilia: Tales of Music and
the Brain. New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 2007.
32 Nichols C: Is there an evolutionary advantage of schizophrenia? Pers Individ Dif 2009;
46:832838.
33 Van Winkel R, Esquivel G, Kenis G, Wichers
M, Collip D, Peerbooms O, Rutten B, MyinGermeys I, Van Os J: Genome-wide findings
in schizophrenia and the role of gene-environment interplay. CNS Neurosci Ther 2010;
16:e185e192.
34 Reuter M, Roth S, Holve K, Hennig J: Identification of first candidate genes for creativity: a pilot study. Brain Res 2006; 1069: 190
197.
35 Kri S: Genes for psychosis and creativity: a
promoter polymorphism of the neuregulin 1
gene is related to creativity in people with
high intellectual achievement. Psychol Sci
2009;20:10701073.

Thys /Sabbe /DeHert