Photography and depression

[David Brown]

... I think that depression can be most artistically inspiring. It can also destroy you. But I think Beethoven and Van Gogh would be infinitely less if they were just happy people making happy art.

Maybe. I think Beethoven's music and Van Gogh's paintings would definitely have been different, but not necessarily less.

Depression, anger, and/or pain have played a big part in the creation of some music (and other art). Not only Beethoven, but Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Shostakovich, and coutless others come to mind. Yet, Bach was, by most accounts, a fairly happy family man. Oh, he had constant quarrels with his employers and patrons, but who doesn't.

As a musician, I find that I can't perform when unhappy. I'm sure there are exceptions. But, if one has witnessed the sheer joy in performance that happens with say, an Itzhak Perlman, or a Yo-Yo Ma, you have to know that their joy contributes to the realization (performance) of the art. And they don't just perform "happy" music.

Oh, well; interesting discussion. It's given me insight into a few of the posters.

As usual, I could be wrong. This is just my opinion based on lifetime observations.

Cheers,

 

[Wayne]

If depression and other mental illnesses are not organic in nature, how is it that drugs have any effect? Are you thinking they are all placebo in nature?

My own experience is that both drugs and brain chemical changes brought on by exercise had a dramatic effect.

How would you explain the hereditary nature of some of these deseases? And maybe you can explain how a MRI can show differences between 'healthy' brains and those of people with pronounced mental illness?.

You are unfortunately under seeveral illusions and I dont have the time to go into detail on them all. there is a wealth of information on these very subjects on the web and in books. First, briefly, the "hereditary nature" is far from conclusive. At best, a potential prededisposition to several mental illnesses has been proposed, certainly nothing more concrete than that has been proven. It is an elusive link, and will remain so indefinitely IMO because of the complexity of the human experience.

Second, the success rate of psych drugs is overstated, after subtracting the placebo effect and those for whom it simply doesnt work I believe its somewhat less than 50% for antidepressants. On the same point, it should not be a surprise that people often feel better and forget their problems when they take drugs. Thats why people take drugs, and have for millenia.

lastly, the imaging studies of which you speak are usually of people with drugged or drug-damaged brains. Even if there is a study with "clean" brains (and I'm not aware of one) it shouldnt come as a surprise that people who are using or arent using parts of their brain more than others will reflect this in brain imaging.

 

[Wayne]

Thanks for responding. But I still wonder on what you are basing this judgement? I know that you must have something factual that this is based on? I really would like to know because I don't understand.

I am basing it on the lack of diagnostic pathology for any and all mental illness, and the extremely shakey and highly debateable "evidence" for it.

 

[arigram]

I am with Wayne on this one. Even though I worked with a psychologist for a bit in the army, I can't say I trust this kind of "science" too much. With no offence to the professionals.

 

[Donald Miller]

I am basing it on the lack of diagnostic pathology for any and all mental illness, and the extremely shakey and highly debateable "evidence" for it.

Wayne, Thank you for you explanation. I understand now.

 

[jeroldharter]

Second, the success rate of psych drugs is overstated, after subtracting the placebo effect and those for whom it simply doesnt work I believe its somewhat less than 50% for antidepressants. On the same point, it should not be a surprise that people often feel better and forget their problems when they take drugs. Thats why people take drugs, and have for millenia.

Oh, man. Having spent two consecutive weekends on call at the hospital I get exasperated with this stuff. An informal assessment of your view would be to ask non-psychiatric professional people if they agree with the "it's all in your head but not in your brain" theory that you espouse. Ask policemen, EMT's, firemen, judges, district attorneys, homeless shelter workers, etc. if they agree with you. Just as I finished my residency, a bad thing happened. One of the female psychiatrists was married to a man with bipolar disorder. He went off of his medications, murdered her, and left her in a dumpster. I doubt she would agree with your placebo effect rationalization.

Without arguing your statistics, what is so bad about a 49% success rate? If I were a severely, chronically mentally ill person who could not work or maintain a functional relationship (and I insist I am not) I would take that rate. Also, what is "success?" Of course medications don't cure all of life's ills. If the suicide rate for untreated depression or schizophrenia is 15%, is that a random/sham number too? 1-2% of the general population kill themselves anyway?

What would you have said about neurosyphilis before penicillin? Would you have changed your mind afterward? Or maybe you still don't "believe in" tertiary syphilis. What are your thoughts about Alzheimer's Disease? Just a bunch of whack-minded old slackers?

 

[blansky]

Back to the initial thread, I've stated here before, that extremely creative people are very often single minded, obsessively driven, and function poorly at most other aspects of life. They have this "gift" that is also a curse.

As for being creative while being depressed, it's an interesting concept. Many great songs were written by people during emotional distress but I don't think that the physical act of photographing anything is enhanced by depression.

As others have said they just shut down and don't feel creative or have the desire to photograph.

I grew up with a mother that was what we now called bi-polar and it was not too pleasant. Suicide attempts mixed in with periods of exagerated glee. What a rollercoaster ride.

I do think that endorphins created through exercise can help most people as well as being around funny people that make people laugh. Medications, which I don't like and are used far too often as a crutch, and usually have terrible side affects, are perhaps a last resort.

This is all just my opinion because I'm lucky enough not to have depression more that the average person, and I good game of hockey or getting drunk with friends usually cures it.


Michael

 

[Wayne]

This really isnt something I want to go into in depth on Apug, but since you asked I will reply

Oh, man. Having spent two consecutive weekends on call at the hospital I get exasperated with this stuff. An informal assessment of your view would be to ask non-psychiatric professional people if they agree with the "it's all in your head but not in your brain" theory that you espouse.

Please Doctor, you start with the ad hominem and follow right up with the strawman, making this far too easy. Whats next, the red herring? You have put words in my mouth that were never there, and I would never say anything so callous.

Ask policemen, EMT's, firemen, judges, district attorneys, homeless shelter workers, etc. if they agree with you. Just as I finished my residency, a bad thing happened. One of the female psychiatrists was married to a man with bipolar disorder. He went off of his medications, murdered her, and left her in a dumpster. I doubt she would agree with your placebo effect rationalization.

This is tragic, but I wasnt expecting the herring story so soon. I know a man with manic-depression who is probably going to kill someone someday too when he is off his meds, but that doesnt change the facts. One of the facts is that many people taking the stronger meds hate them, and are pressured and coerced into it by others including family and psychiatrists. That they have a terribly difficult time when they stop taking mind-numbing drugs and their emotions (formerly masked) come back full steam is no surprise either.

Without arguing your statistics, what is so bad about a 49% success rate? If I were a severely, chronically mentally ill person who could not work or maintain a functional relationship (and I insist I am not) I would take that rate. Also, what is "success?" Of course medications don't cure all of life's ills. If the suicide rate for untreated depression or schizophrenia is 15%, is that a random/sham number too? 1-2% of the general population kill themselves anyway?

What would you have said about neurosyphilis before penicillin? Would you have changed your mind afterward? Or maybe you still don't "believe in" tertiary syphilis. What are your thoughts about Alzheimer's Disease? Just a bunch of whack-minded old slackers?

This is all quite weak material.

As you should know, the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease can now be confirmed with 95% or better certainty by examining the brains of the deceased. Lois Alzheimer discovered that with a razor blade, glass slides, and light microscope 100 years ago. You cannot to do that today with the brain or blood or neurochemistry of any mental illness patient, living or dead, using any modern imaging technologies, scans, or blood test. And why not? Its a bunch of bunk thats why, and a lucrative multi billion dollar drug industry that buys influence among psychiatrists and often controls what research gets published and what doesnt, doesnt want people to know that. I am not making this up, anyone who spends a couple hours researching this can find the truth.

I dont care what drugs consenting adults choose to take if they are told the truth, its the lie of organic disease that I object to. If someone is told or it is implied they have a brain disease when there is no diagnostic test and therefore absolutely no proof, they are effectively being coerced. I find that an unthinkable and cruel act of deception on vulnerable people.

 

[bjorke]

Many artists have been depressed but it's been rare that they had unipolar depression. Instead they've usually had wide emotional ranges, and usually produce more during happier, more productive segments of their lives.

There's plenty of documentation on this btw -- not just speculating here

 

[jeroldharter]

You cannot to do that today with the brain or blood or neurochemistry of any mental illness patient, living or dead, using any modern imaging technologies, scans, or blood test. And why not? Its a bunch of bunk thats why, and a lucrative multi billion dollar drug industry that buys influence among psychiatrists and often controls...

You are right that "there is not a test" to diagnose a mental illness. Perhaps there will be soon. In the meantime, do we assume that the brain is the only organ in the body with essentially no dysfunction until old age? Apart from multiple sclerosis and epilepsy there are few other brain illnesses that occur until old age. I suppose migraine headaches are a sham as well since there is "no test" to diagnose them. Why would a body's most complicated organ be so free of biological problems and so prone to existential problems? Perhaps yellow bile?

By the way, I am still waiting on my check from "the pharmaceutical industry."

 

[rml]

Statistically, more artists (of any kind and creed) are/were manic-depressives when compared to the general population. Just a thought.

 

[Mike Lopez]

This really isnt something I want to go into in depth on Apug, but since you asked I will reply




Please Doctor, you start with the ad hominem and follow right up with the strawman, making this far too easy. Whats next, the red herring? You have put words in my mouth that were never there, and I would never say anything so callous.

Your first post on this thread was to tell us how psychiatrists are "just as full of shit as ever." Is that callous? I never saw an apology to Jerold after he was good enough to apologize for making a joking remark, either.

 

[Wayne]

You are right that "there is not a test" to diagnose a mental illness. Perhaps there will be soon. In the meantime, do we assume that the brain is the only organ in the body with essentially no dysfunction until old age? Apart from multiple sclerosis and epilepsy there are few other brain illnesses that occur until old age. I suppose migraine headaches are a sham as well since there is "no test" to diagnose them. Why would a body's most complicated organ be so free of biological problems and so prone to existential problems? Perhaps yellow bile?

By the way, I am still waiting on my check from "the pharmaceutical industry."

"Perhaps there will be soon".


I have heard this for years. There is no such test now and there is no such test projected to be available anytime soon. This statement validates my original one on your profession. It us pure fraud, utter BS.

I can see it now-I walk into my doctor's office and he says "Well Wayne, I have your lab tests. Good news! You cholesterol is low, your liver enzymes look fine, but I'm afraid your depression coenzymes are elevated. You'll have to start taking medication now in order to maintain your neurotransmitters within the limits recommended by the American Psychiatric Association". What an unfunny joke, the entire idea is utterly preposterous.

"Do we assume that the brain is the only organ in the body with essentially no dysfunction until old age?"

We do not let wild assumptions color the evidence. Your implied premise that because some diseases were (and some remain) unproven and lack diagnostic tests, that this somehow bolsters a position that mental illness WILL BE, is transparent. There is abundant evidence to the contrary. I recommend "Blaming the Brain" by Eliot Valenstein for those who are interested in the subject. There are a lot of unbalanced books on the subject, but I think this one is pretty good. In fact its too balanced and too uncritical, IMO, but very good nonetheless.

The beauty of the position your profession holds on biological diagnosis is that 100 years from now when you still havent found it you can still say it is coming "soon" and some people will believe you. Makes for great job security. It is not coming though, because it is based on that flawed assumption (more like a religious belief) that people with different emotional experience and undesired behaviors are biologically defective, which in turn reveals an astonishingly poor, oversimplified grasp of the complexity of human experience. When a single biological diagnostic test for any mental illness becomes available ("soon", as you say) come back and I will apologize, OK?

Enough already. Bringing this back around to photography-Ansel Adams was a very troubled hyperactive child and certainly would have been diagnosed as ADHD and drugged if he was a child today. Fortunately he had a father who cared extraordinarily for him, who took him out of school and nurtured him and went far beyond the bounds of what most parents would do. The rest is history/legend. I would like to see someone argue that Ansel would have been better off or have been able to achieve more with his life if modern psychiatry had intervened.

"I often wonder at the strength and courage my father had in taking me out of the traditional school situation and providing me with these extraordinary learning experiences. I am certain he established the positive direction of my life that otherwise, could have been confused and chaotic. I trace who I am and the direction of my development to those years of growing up in our house on the dunes -- propelled especially by an internal spark tenderly kept alive and glowing by my father." ---Ansel Adams

 

[Mike Lopez]

That post is pretty callous in places, as well.

 

[Gerald Koch]

The composer Handel is known to have been bipolar by his own admission. We know he suffered from long bouts of the deepest depression. However, in one of his maniac phases he was able to compose the Messiah in only a few days working without sleep or food.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

"Perhaps there will be soon".


I have heard this for years. ...

etc etc

Well Wayne, I have to congratulate you on your ability to debate an issue. I am sure there is merit in your arguement. I am awfully glad you've taken the time to debate properly. Your original comment was not acceptable and lacked a certain intelligence. At this point, your intelligence is not in doubt.

Let me just side-step that and ask a simple question which both you and the good doctor can take a shot at.

Over simplification Warning!

As far as I know, ailments in the body have causes and symptoms. The drugstore and pharmacy have medicines which serve two legitimate purposes. One class of medicine treats causes and the other treats symptoms. For some ailments, the patient will take a drug or two from each class. This is of course the ideal situation.

In many cases medical science has drugs to treat causes effectively and only moderate or minimal help to treat symptoms. This is also acceptable to society. The patient may hurt for a while but will eventually recover.

In other cases, medical science is not able to treat the cause of an ailment for one reason or another. However, they have the ability to alleviate the suffering in a patient by treating the symptom. In other words, they can't stop the cause of the pain but can stop the suffering. I like that.

I am the sort of patient who is willing to take a drug which treats my symptoms even if the root cause of the ailment remains untreatable. The headache is a good example.

Depression is an ailment for which there does not appear to be a pharmaceutical cure. Bummer. The good news is that although doctors cannot cure depression with a pill, they can make me feel better for a while. How is that a bad thing? I for one, am willing to take a medicine that will keep me from killing myself or others. If the pill allows me to function in society, feed my family and produce good work then I vote for the symptom masking drug.

 

[blansky]

Part of this debate is also the problem that way too many people, millions actually, go to doctors to fix themselves. They all want a quick fix and in most cases won't even go to the trouble to help fix themselves. Unfortunately once on the "doctor give me a pill for this" rollercoaster they rarely get off.

Psychiatric professionals have aften been called "rent a friend" and in fact do little more than give people an outlet to talk. On the other hand they also deal with people with very serious brain chemistry imbalance problems that need serious help, including medication.

I think we the public are just as responsible for the medical and drug abuses as the doctors who are little more than a delivery agent for the drug companies. We have to take control of our own lives. Now for the whole game to work we make an appointment to see a doctor, spend less than 10 minutes with him and want a drug. Due to his costs and rising insurance premiums he is only to happy to "flog em in and flog en out". We are both losers in this dance and the drug companies make billions off of it.

We are a fat lazy society that feed ourselves and our children garbage and when we have problems because of it we all want a quick fix.


MIchael

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Part of this debate is also the problem that way too many people, millions actually, go to doctors to fix themselves. ...
We are a fat lazy society that feed ourselves and our children garbage and when we have problems because of it we all want a quick fix.


MIchael

Yes Michael, I entirely agree with you. The drugs themselves are not the problem, the abuse is. This is why I stopped taking the meds and found a brilliant alternative. It is a solution that worked for me. Will it work for everyone? No.

John

 

[Wayne]

Depression is an ailment for which there does not appear to be a pharmaceutical cure. Bummer. The good news is that although doctors cannot cure depression with a pill, they can make me feel better for a while. How is that a bad thing? .

If this is the question you wanted me to answer, its easy. As long as you are an adult, you get to decide what is and isnt good for you. As long as you do it knowing the whole truth, which you will not get from most psychiatrists or mental health support organizations, the decision can be made freely and hopefully wisely.

There are many reasons to be wary of dependance on medication but I always support an adults right to make that decision for themself without lies and coercion from doctors, drug companies, friends or family.

 

[Wayne]

Part of this debate is also the problem that way too many people, millions actually, go to doctors to fix themselves. They all want a quick fix and in most cases won't even go to the trouble to help fix themselves. Unfortunately once on the "doctor give me a pill for this" rollercoaster they rarely get off.

Psychiatric professionals have aften been called "rent a friend" and in fact do little more than give people an outlet to talk. On the other hand they also deal with people with very serious brain chemistry imbalance problems that need serious help, including medication.


MIchael

You are partly right. In case you havent been following, there is no proof of chemical imbalnce in any mental illness, there is no way to test for it, and the majority of what psychiatrists do today is simply manage medication in short appointments. There is very little talk therapy being done by psychiatrists these days.

The rest of what you say is right on.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

...There is very little talk therapy being done by psychiatrists these days. ...

That is mostly true in my case. My psychologist did attempt to get to the nature of the problem but first he sent my MD an opinion that drugs would be beneficial. Once on the drug for a while, I was feeling good enough that I wasn't so interested in continuing therapy. Surely that was a mistake on my part.

As it happens, everything sort of worked itself out.

 

[jeroldharter]

Hard to get the time to address all of this stuff. So much opinion based on minimal experience. Hard to argue with someone's experience but not very accurate to extrapolate that experience to the world as a whole.

Of course psychiatrists "talk to patients" and more so than any other medical specialty. That is why we see many fewer patients per day than other doctors. One of the reasons that we do less formal psychotherapy now compared to years ago is that there is a flood of therapists of various ilks and relatively few psychiatrists. In public sector psychiatry, government re-imbursement schemes incentivise psychosocial treatments and psychiatrists are seen as cost centers rather than producers. A mental health center can earn more money hiring someone with a high school education to drive the patient to the grocery than it would earn by providing an hour of psychiatrist's time. That, of course, is in line with Wayne's model of existential psychiatry. Psychiatry is lower paid and there is still alot of stigma (see this thread). There is a national shortage of psychiatrists especially in rural areas. Medications are often more efficacious than psychotherapy. Not everyone is depressed you know. Anyone who has spent an hour talking to someone with schizophrenia or mania will vouch for medication over psychotherapy.

Blansky's assertions that psychiatrists are basically drug pushers for hire is absurd. Where do you come up with this stuff? There is a distinction to be made between drug companies trying to influence prescribing practices such that we choose one drug over another and whether we prescribe a drug at all. You can debate what is the first line medication treatment for schizophrenia, but no treatment is absurd. I suppose orthopedists are just whores for the device makers pimping artificial hips.

Wayne's denial of the existence of biologically based mental illness seems odd. A brain is the most difficult organ to study. Apart from cutting up a dead brain what can you do? MRI's, which are relatively recent inventions, show gross anatomy and PET scans can show gross physiology. But the technology is still lacking. Nevertheless, there are a number of documented brain differences in various mental illnesses but nothing pathognomonic yet. Also, prove the null hypothesis that brains of patients with mental illness function normally. That can't be done either. A reasonable person would at least suspend judgement.

 

[Curt]

"Then I was lucky to find a Neurosurgeon who said I deserved an MRI. I had the MRI and and then had surgery."


I want to add that the surgery I had was on my lower back for nerve entrapment and the MRI was used to diagnose the condition. I didn't have an MRI for depression or any mental condition. The depression was a result of career loss and being permanently injured. I know that MRI's are commonly used for examination of the brain, i.e. bleed, tumor, etc. Mine was a Lumbar Spine.

 

[George Papantoniou]

There is an opinion expressed by some extremists that states that depression is mainly caused by foods and additives that are ingested by sensitive persons. (I mean, sensitive to those foods etc). If the intake of the suspected substances is interrupted, the subject feels like he/she would feel on Prozac.

There is an opinion expressed by some (other) extremists that states that MAO inhibitors can cause cancer. That is, because they interrupt the natural process of "claning" the blood from unwanted substances, like oxidants for example. Of course, some of the substances that remain unremoved from the blood are endorphins...

I also heard the crazy story that there are several autistic children's parents that have suceeded to make their children communicate with the world just by altering their diet. (Autism, ADHD, depression and - maybe - epilepsy are believed by some (extremists) to be closely or remotely related).

By concluding, I have to say that all of the above theories are just speculations and have no scientific research to back them up. I am not trying to be smart, I just repeat things that I have heard here and elsewhere, just as food for thought... it might all be ridiculously false...

 

[blansky]

Blansky's assertions that psychiatrists are basically drug pushers for hire is absurd.

If you had read what I said, you would find that I didn't say that. I said that in general, "doctors" are drug pushers for the drug industry.

I did say that psychiatrists and psychologists are "hired friends" but I did add that there are severe cases like you mentioned, that in my opinion, do need constant medication.


Michael