I I r I
lOS TEN BERGE
Breakdown or Breakthrough? A Histon,J of European Research into Drugs and Creativitv
ABSTRACT Longuage barriers have largely prevented American scholars from learning about European studies concernIng drugs and creativity. An art historian reports on several Swiss, English, French and German studies conducted from the 19405 to the 19705, offering new data in a research area that has been banned since drugs Iike_mescalin, psilocybin, and LSD became illegal. Different views ofthe operations ofthese drugs, revealed by such terms as whallucinogens," "psychologenics," and "psychedelics," appear to have colored researchers' aims to a large extent. The notions of drugs "dlctaUng" or ~liberatlng" the intoxicated artist are criticized by discussing the importance of set and setting. It is proposed that intentional drug use among artists expecting artistic breakthroughs while Intoxi~ cated, can be seen as a form of "gaucherie" or disinhiblting technique.
INTRODUCTION When studying creativity, scientific researchers have often turned to their attention to artists using drugs. Although the eagerness with which artists use drugs is somewhat mythical, it can be linked to an expectation that was born with Roman· ticism and since then has resurfaced with stubborn regularity in the history of Western art: the expectation that drugs might raise creativity, insplraHon, or at least aesthetic sensibil~ ity, to levels that would be much harder to reach under normal conditions. But although much anecdotal evidence seems to support sw;:h claims, and while the art world may count more drug enthusiasts among its members than other trades, iI is by no means as saturated by them as we might expect Jf drugs really
257 VO/llmen Number4 Fourth Quarllr 1999
Supplied by The British Library - "The world's k.nowledge" ~-~~~~--~~~~~~--~~~-~
I
Breakdown of Breakthrough
could foster creativity. In fact, the question why artists do not use drugs ~II the time. is as relevant as trying to ascertain whether these substances might stimulate creativity or not. Unfortunately, Brt historians have not been overly concerned with these questions. and most of the available information in this area comes from experimental research that aimed {or straight answers to the second question only. It is also unfortunate that these studies have not always been methodologically compatible and that their resuhs have remai· ned somewhat fragmentary since new drug laws In the late 19605 made further research impossible. Forthis reason alone it is importanllo bring together all the information that research ers hllve been able to gather in the past. During my research in this field, however,l found that American and European sci entists have remained ignorant of each other's work to a sur prisingly large extent.' It seems that language barriers have stood in the way of almost all transatlantic communication. A history and review of the most important studies that were done by European, and in particuhn French and German speaking scientists in this field, might provide researchers in theUSwHh new data to be interpreted a..!"d give fresh impetus to the dis cussion about drugs and creativity In general,2 As an art historian J do not feel competent to discuss the relationships between creativity and drug use with all the sci entific finesse of a professional psychologist. Still, I hope to offer not only an intriguing chapter from the history of expeli mental psychology, but also a unique chance to look over lhe shoulder of the drugged artist and reflect once again on the use of drugs In art.
ftHA1LUONOGENS· Already in the early nineteenth century, sporadic mention Is made of drug experiences thet, afterwards, became the inspl retion for works of art. The idea that one could also be artisti cally active during intoxication was first posited by the French romantic author Th!ophile Gautier, who, Iry 1843, described how he felt an "irresistible urge"to start drawing at great speed when under the innuence of hashish (Geutier, 1961a, p. 41). The psychiatrist Jacques-Joseph Moreau (de Tours) then ini-
I Alii have found about European research are the very summary arllcles by Kipholr (1969) and Anonymou5 (1969). For I\merlcan studies one Is rererred to Krippner (1985) and Janiger & DObkin de Rlos (1989), both wIth references to earlier studies. 2 Unfortunately, studies from former communIst countries cannot be discussed here since, again, a language barrier stands In the way.
25.
Supplied by The British Library - "The world's knowledge" JOllrnal 01 Cnollve Behavior
tiated a series of experiments with writers and artists that became famous as the "hashlshc1ub" (Moreau, 1970; Gautier, 1961b). Since then not much systematic research was done in this field, until the introduction of mescaline in the 1920s and LSD in the 1940s. The modern history of the study of drugs and creativity started with psychiatrists asking artists to illustrate their hal1u~ cinations.ln 1940 forexample,the London based psychiatrists Walter Maday and Erich Guttmann wanted to know more about the nature of the hallucinations of their patients. Since they found their verbal descriptions not very reliable, they asked several artists to take the "hallucinogenic" drug mescaline and to sketch their visions during intoxication. In this way they [n deed obtained some illustrations of hallucinations, butin addi tion also observed some stylistic changes in the work produced in this manner, when compared with the artists' normal work. In one case they found a prevalence of wavy lines that were "entirely foreign to the artist's ordinary style but were marked in his sketches made during the intoxication, so that there can be little doubt about their causation by the drug" (Maday & Guttmann, 1941, p. 136). Although the logic seems impeccable. the situation is not as simple as Maday and Guttmann suggested. For one thing, It is noW known that the "wavy lines" in the work of the artist in question were nol entirely foreign to his ordinary style. In fact. the artist used wavy lines in his regular work for some time already. Ratherthan "dictating" him wavy lines, asMllciay and Guttmann suggested, intoxication might as well have given him an opportunity. perhaps even an excuse. to do some further experiments wilh this new element In his work. The idea of a drug "causing" wavy lines nevertheless directly relates to the psychiatric notion of the S!ilwandel, a German term denoting a more or less radical change in style in drawing or painting that sometimes accompanies the outbreak of psychosis. At the time, it was commonly believed among psychiatrists deal~ ing with the creative products of their patients, that the style In which the insane worked was somehow dictated by their pathology (MacGregor, 1989. p. 91). In effect, it was not so much the patient, as his disease that was considered to be the principal author of the work.
"PSYCHOTOGENICS· Since drugs like mescaline were thought to induce a "model psychOSIS," it followed that they too would have to cause a change in style that would reflect the confused Slate of mind
259
Supplied by The British Library - ''The wor1d's knowledge" BrukdOwn 0' BI'tI..through
of the Intoxicated. These ideas probably relate to a popular, though somewhat archaic notion of disease and intoxication as demons taking possessIon of mind and body. And although some phenomena of Intoxication do seem to confirm this belief, it is definitely nOlthe whole story. For one thing, this "demoniac mode'" implies that different painters under the innuence of one and the same drug would startworking in one and the same drug-induced style, a hypothesis that Is easy to falsify, both historically and experimentally. Still, an expression like "being under the influence" testifies to the enduring strength of the idea that drugs force the Intoxi cated to think or behave In ways that differ radically from his normal ways. In the 1950s drug experiments often started on this basis. In 1951 for example, LBsz[o Matefi, a physicizm and painter (rom Basle, Switzerland, set up an experiment to establish the exact pathological nature of the mescalin and LSD intoxication. To this end he would take one of these drugs and draw the porlrait of a supervisor every hour during intoxi cation as realistically as he possibly could. In this way MaiMi hoped to obtain an "objective" visual protocollhat, afterwards, would enable him to diagnos.e the two drug states. The follow~ ing fragments from the protocol of the LSD session give an impression of what happened: At 9.15 Matl!fi took 100 gamma LSD. At 9.35 he still feels completely normal. He resolves to work as neutrally llnd academically as possible. He considers drawing no. 1 {Figure laJ only moderately successful. At 10.40 he feels rather euphoric. His drawing becomes more uncer tain: "I see the object clearly, but draw It Incorrectly, my hands don't follov.' me. I must be careful not to smuggle in cubist ideas." He fails to keep control over the propor~ Uons between parts. His movements become wider, more expansive {Figure IbJ. From 11.00 colors start glowing and forms of objects dissolve into Schwung/(nfen, or wavy lines. 11.30: "I see and experience so much, everything mixes; no perspective; things don't have much sub stance." 11.45: "It makes me furious that I cannot really keep my mind on my work. IfI were normal, I might make some great drawings." "My hand must follow those wavy lines. Except for the play of colors and the plasticity, t see my model in the correct proportions and outlines, but my hand Is being dragged along by the dynamics of some
260
Supplied by The British Library ~ ''The world's knowledge" 1 ------.. --,.----~--·1 I
JOUfn.1 ~f Cr~~l;~~ Behavior
FIGURE lA-I. Ulsz]6 Miitefi, Untitled, nine portraits from Zl series of fourteen, made before (la), during (1 b-h) and after (1 i) an LSD-session. 1951, charcoal on paper (except If: tempefel on cardboard), dimensions and location unknown.
;;; -~, '~. "'
'system of coordinZltes' [Figure lc]. I concentrate and try again: it doesn't work. I give up e1nd e1t the third e1t tempt I let myself go [Figure Id]. Istart again e1nd in one big move produce drawing no. 7 [Figure le]."
11.50: M 261 Supplied by The British Library - "The world's knowledge" J Brukdown Dr Brnklhrou9h 12.10: MatMi Is reminded of the purpose of the experi ment. "It disturbs me to have to concentrate on the model; cannot see the model as an object any longer. In my experience my hand should be drawn too. In fact I feel the need to bring elJerythlng, even the painted image itself, into the same picture." "If Icould paint better tech nically at the moment, I could create a fantastic piece" [Figure If]. 12.20: "j have the feeling that I should paint frescoes. Every piece of paper is too small." 13.15: Visual halluci nations are retreating. "Now I am even more sure that I should be a painter." 14.00: M6tefi is asked if his drawings mean anything: "Yes, when Ilet go, very much, because it Is the expression of my feelings." Drawing no. 91Figure 19) shows a tendency to give every movement a balancing counterpart, a mIrrorlike repetition of out lines." At 15.00 "the wavy lines are clearly slowed down" [Figure Ih]. 17.15: Drawing no. 14 (Figure til: "Am very tired, absent-minded; during the drug experience had the feel ing of performing better and more interestingly" (Materi, 1952, pp. 148-160). Materi concluded that the LSD state was characterised by an "urge towards expansion" that manifested itself in the urge to work on an ever larger scale as well as In the style of the drawing that was made at the height of Intoxication (Figure ]fl. Since the drawings from the mescalin session, on the other hand. showed a shrivelling of strokes, a "rolling into itself" and "encapsulation," he diagnosed the LSD state as "hebephrenous" and the mescalin state as "catatonic." ·PSYCHEOEUCS~ From the late 1950s onwards, the psychiatric perspective on drugs was gradually abandoned. New generations chose not to speak any longer of "psychotogenic" or "psychotomimetic" drugs, but adopted Instead the newly coined adjective "psy chedelic," implying a very different, though not at all new, view of their effects. In the 1960s the idea that LSD, like an acid, burns ofrthe patina ofsocial and psychological programming, thereby uncovering buried aspects ofone's true nature, quickly gained ground. In essence, the psychedelic model is an up dated version of the old "in vino veritas" saying, signifying the opposite of the old "demoniac" view of intoxication. Instead of 262 Supplied by The British Library - "The world's knowledge" •, Jl)Uln./ ~r Crutive 5th.vlo. being "under the influence" and not himself anymore, intoxi~ cation now was thought to enable lhe drug user to shake orr everything arlilkial and to contact something like his "true" Inner self, Not surprisingly, this alternative picture of the operation of drugs proved to be much more attractive than the former one, also among artists. While drug use first degraded them into a kind of medium under dictation. now the same drugs seemed to promise a chance to realise an Ideal that many at the time still held near to their hearts: the expression of inner lIuth. Drug use meant nothing less than leaving artificiality behind and contacting some deeper level of the psyche where more fun damental truths were waiting to be revealed. Although the psychedelic model of the operation of drugs seems to be more sensitive (0 the experience of many users than the demoniac model. it also has some obvious drawbacks. For one thing, it depends on the belief that such a thing as a "true self" does, in fact, exist, a supposition that nowadays is often rejected as typical for a past and all too idealistic worldview. Furthermore, lhe psychedelic model also supposes (hat drugs like LSD sl]ow this hidden self in a more or less pure and uncontaminated way, and that too seems symptom atic of the oplimism that marked the sixties. By taking a closer look over the intoxicated artisls' shoulder, we can now try to determine if, or to what extent, drugs can be said to "dictate" or "liberate." Two large-scale research projects, one French and one German, allow us to do just that, in retrospect alleast. PSILOCYBIN IN PMIS The first project took place in Paris from 1959 to 1962. There neuro-psychiatrist Robert Volmat and his assistant Ren~ Rob· ert from the Saint~Anne Hospital supervised 35drug sessions that were conducted with the help of 29 artists. The drug they used Was psilocybin, a "hallucinogen" that was recently syn thesized from the so-called magic mushrooms and that seemed somewhat easier to handle than mescaline. Initially they also aimed for illustrations of hallucinations, but they soon found that painting and hallucinating were mutually exclusive pro I cesses: "The hallucinating subject does not paint, and when he starts paInting he doesn't hallucinate anymore and does not paint the hallucinations he had seen before" (Vol mat & I Robert, 1961, p. 20). They then chose to study the effects of the drug on the cre I ative process. The participating artists were asked to starl workIng immediately after taking the drug so that every change 263 - Supplied by The British Library - "The world's knowledge" ---~~-...... =-, ! Brukdown or B,uklhrollgh In approach and style might be observed directly. Except for only two cases, a change in style was noted in the work of all participants during intoxication. In a typical case, after twenty to thirty minutes the subject would experience a Nperplexlty": He begins to hesiLale and complains about a slackening pace in his work and about changes in his perception of form and color. "The painter finds himself confronted with the Impossi bility of using his normal techniques and materials. He has lost his experience with colors, drawing, spatial composition. He must give up that which constituted his painter's ideal" (Volmat (, Robert, 1961, p. 21). When the artist clings to his ideals, the drug experience will prove disappointlng, the researchers observed, but when he is willing to accept his new working conditions, e change In style will occur almost invariably. Sometimes Illusions of colors, for example, lead to an unexpected light palette and an excessive use of white because color perception has become so Intense that the artist is content with only the slightest semblance of color. Generally however, the observed changes in style are not caused by disturbances in the sensorial or motor appara tus, according to Volmat ar:t.d Robert, but by drug-induced changes in the experience of space and time. The impossibility to position an ear correctly in a profile (Figure Ie), to draw from a model, orto create a space in three dimensions, all testify to a changed experience of space. The attempts of one artist Intoxicated by psilocybin, for example, filmed by the Swiss psychiatrist Alfred Bader in 1967, were almost tragi-eomical in this respect: To regain his control over three-dimensional space this artist reverted to the elementary techniques that he had learned in drawing class long before. Still, and to his utter frustration, his attempts to draw a sche matic chair in perspective failed miserably because he did not notice that he had placed his vanishing point far below his horizon, in the foreground (Bader (, Ansorge, 1967). Other frequently noted characteristics of "psilocybinic" art such as an elongated brush stroke, repetition, and parallel lines, do not result, according to Volmat and Robert (1961), from , trembling hands or some other motor disturbance, but from a compelling rhythm that replaces the normal experience of time. The dessins mescaliens that the French artist Henri Michaux made in the late fifties illustrate this rhythmical experience of time (Michaux, 1972; Figure 2). Concurrently, an Inevitable "discovery ofspeed" takes place: Artists work faster than nor mal, omit mixing colors as too time consuming, sometimes 264 Supplied by The British Library - ''The world's knowledge" --1 ; I I Journal 01 Crntlv.. 9~MYI<'" I I i flGUAE 2. Henri Michaux, Dessin mescalien, 1958, [ndi~n ink on paper, 50.4 x 29.8 em, Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam. leave their brushes behind to work directly with their hands, or even start throwing with their paint. Because the ability to look ahead or plan into the future is lost, the work becomes an "in stantaneous inscription" of the painter's experience (Volmat & Robert, 1962, p. 23). Perhaps surprIsingly, these phenomena were received en thusiastically by both the researchers and their subjects: "From '.5 Supplied by The British Library - "The world's knowledge" ~ I I 8rukdown or Breakthrough the impossibilities new possIbilities might arise that are wel comed by the painter as 'a liberation', and in which he claims and believes to recognize his true 'nature'" (Volmat e. Robert, 1961, p. 21). Statements such as "I feel liberated" and "I al ways wanted to paint Ilke this, but never dared," supported this conclusion. Moreover, after the experiment many artists were observed trying to work "as if under drugs," and conse quently their work orten showed a lasting change ofcharacter. Generally, the work of this "new period" resembled neither the old nor the experimental work. but something "intermediary." Although it was admitted that the drug had to be held more or less directly responsible for some orten recurring formal aspects of the work made during intoxication, Volmat and many ofhis subjects apparently subscribed to the psychedelic model. They spoke of "fertile moments" in which barriers and inhibi tions are lifted, enabling the artist to rediscover "his elemen tary expressive faculty" (Volmat & Robert. 1961, p. 21). And so It appears not only that the influence of drugs on the cre ative proces can Include elements of both dictation and libera tion, but also that the use of these labels depends largely on what is considered desirabll; In art. The French enthousiasm about the "dissolution of form" sprang from a belief in some kind of creative mainspring that was contacted during intoxi cation and from which the practice of art could be regener ated. This belief was not subscribed to by most participants in the second research project to be discussed. LSD IN MUNICH From 1968 to 1970. German psychologist and gallery owner Richard Hartmann invited about fifty artists to come to theMax Planck Institute for Psychiatry In Munich, take LSD there, and go to work. Hartmann too aimed ~t observing changes in ar tistic approach and found, like Volmat and Robert, that artists with composition, perspective or plasticity of form as their normal point of departure experienced more trouble in adapt ing to the drug's effects than those who usually worked in a more automatic, moloric manner. The work of the first group would, as a rule. show the more radical changes in working method and style (Judes, 1970, p. 7). Hartmann concentrated on the psychological erfects of the drug, as these became manifested in changes In working method. Statements like .., am being absorbed Into the line on the paper" and "My hand moves as If it belongs to somebody else," Indicated to Harlmann a "process of fusion" In which the subject loses his distance with respect to his actions 266 Supplied by The British Library - "The world's knowledge" - - .. --, i I (Hartmann, 1974, p. 15). He distinguished three levels of in tensity b this: 1. Disorientation and disturbances in concentration force the artist to en "associaUve p,,;nting from point to point." Every new line or color eVOKes new images and makes the artist lose sight of his original concept. When he Jets himself be taken along by this "flight of ideas," his work ing-method will soon become essociatfv~ or automatic. Typically the artist stops paying aUentlon to the overall picture and becomes obsessed with detail which often festers on interminably. :'\5 the only participcmt with some experience in working under drug influence stated: "One can work for hours on a detail. You live completely in that little comer where you are bLJsy. You EIre absorbed by it. You don'tthink aboutthe complete work" (Hartmann, 1974, p. 223; Figure 3). FiGUfIE 3. Heimrad Prem, Untitled (Hartmann-Dokumente, 1968-1970), red and blue felt-tipped pen on paper, 51 x 73 em, Graphische SammJung Albertina, Vienna. 267 Supplied by The British Library - "The world's knowledge" ---=-'\ 2. With 80% of the subjects Hartmann observed a working method which he baptized "magical painting,~ after the so-called "magical thinking" of tribal people or children who. for example, identify a mask with a god OT a stick with a horse. "With magical painting illusions and halluci nations aTe forced out of the realms of fantasy and pre sented directly on the paper" (Hartmann, 1974. p. 50). Magical painting is experienced by the artist as a lucid spec tator who sees his hand driven by some kind of external force. "It is as if somebody leads my hand: from the upper right to the lower left; a counter-movement is hardly pos sible.. that's strange, there is somebody in my hand," one participant observed (Hartman, 1974, p. J63; Figure 4). Another, working on a portrait of Hartmann, reported with equal detachment: "What interests me most is that some one is drawing Hartmann, and that it's not me" (Hartmann, 1974, p. 89). 3. When all reflection was lost, Hartmann would speak of "mimetical painting." He described one ofthese rare cases as follows: At the culminating-point of the drug experitmce, during a phase in which he could be talked to, Ithrust a pencil in his hand and asked him suggestively to FIG\JA(; 4. Lothar Fischer, Lust am Fabulieren (Hartmann~Dokumente, 1956~1970), pencil on paper, 50 x 74 em, Graphische Sammlung Albertina, Vienna. 268 Supplied by The British Library ~ "The world's knowledge" Journal tor C.utl.e Beh.rovitlr start drawing something. Incomprehensive, absent minded he looked at the pencil. I proposed to him that he just draw some lines, aimlessly, to see what happened. As if he was handling a screw-driver, he put something on paper. He then watched the arbi trary graphical product with surprise and some sec onds later plunged into a dreamy state In which he continuously drew for two hours. Without looking up from his paper, not noticing any change in his envi ronment, seemingly completely disoriented, but with an eternal 'Buddha-smile', he was completely preoc cupied with his work. (Hartmann, 1974, p. 209) Uke Volmat and Robert, Hartmann stressed the suppres sion of the reflective faculties, but unlike his French colleagues he did not consider "painting from the realms of the uncon scious" to have any artistlc value. He spoke of regressions in thinking and of phyla- and ontogenetic developments being "rewound," revealing images of an "autosymbolic" character that might be of interest to Jungian psychoanalysts (Hartmann. 1974, pp. 37-47). Moreover, Hartmann noted that (continued) drug use brings about a loss of critical reflection that made artists see valuable artistic breakthroughs where there were only the "greatest artistic banalities:" "One conditioning is re placed by another, which means that free development, when aimed ror, becomes precluded" (Hartmann, 1974, p. 222). The artists in Hartmann's experiments were not all that en· thusiastic either. One artist was unable to put anything on pa per because the drug made him re-Iive his war experiences, another became so unmotivated that he refused to spoil any paper. Several participants resisted the drug's effects so effec tively that their work hardly differed from their normal work. Only three of them thought that the experiment had had some lasting positive influence on their work. At least a quarter of them typified both the experience and the work made during intoxication as unreal, inane or baroque kitsch. SeT fWD SETTING Bringing together the results from the studies discussed above ; is complicated by the fact thatresearchers did not always take I into sufficient account at leasfthree factors that can be of de cisive importance in determining the nature of a drug experi enCe and, hence, the succes or failure of an experiment in creativity. When Hartmann's study was evaluated In 1972, these factors became evident (Bader, 1973). 269 , Supplied by The British library - "The world's knowledge" --L Brnkdown or Breakthrough First, the choice and dosage of a drug determine to some extent the ~manageabi1ity"of the drug experience, According to artist Amulf Rainer, for example, Hartmann gave dosages that were too high, and stated that, in his experience, lower dosages had much better results (Bader, 1973, p. 166). Hartmann objected that high dosages for unexperienced sub Jects offer better possibilities to effect and observe changes in the creative process (Bader, 1973, p. 171). Nevertheless, the fact that Volmat and Robert administered 10 milligrams of psilo cybin on average and Hartmann usually gave 100 gamma of LSD, might be of some importance in explaining the differ· ence in their results. Second, the "setting" can also be instrumental in determin Ing the outcome ofan experiment. Psychiatrist Hanscarl Leuner argued that the experimental situation to which Hartmann had exposed his subjects was "absolutely unfit" for its purpose. Hartmann had put his subjects in a white room of a psychiat ric institute and had sixteen of them filmed for television (Hartmann & Reese, 1969). According to Leuner, the nega tive Impression this film gave of the effect of LSD on creativ ity, was notso much due to th~ negative response of the artists to the drug, as to the disturbing effects of an environment that was experienced as hostile, the bright lights and hot lamps needed for filming, and to anxieties about having to perform before the camera (Bader, 1973, p. 168). Volmat and Robert, on the other hand, came to the artist's studio and limited their Interference to making photo's of the work every now and then (Rob.", 1962, pp. 22-24). Flnally, the "set," or the expectations a subject brings to an experiment, is also crucial for its success or failure. Volmat and Robert found their volunteers among friends and in artis tic circles where former subjects introduced them. Possibly, this made for a particular selection of artists with more or less the same artistic concerns, as well as for an atmosphere of intimacy in which the enthousiasm of both researchers and colleagues produced a relatively optimistic set.3 The context In which Hartmann worked must have made for a more anxious set. Since he ran an art gallery, the artists he approached might have felt somewhat obliged to respond. Hartmann tried to as sure his subjects that they should feel exempt from all artistic 3 N.t.vertheless. half or the artists that were approllched refused because, or 50 Rob'!!rt gathered rrom their excuses, they considered drug tllKlng an agresslon aglllnit theIr personal or artistic Integrity (Robert, 1962, p. 25). HlIrtmllnn made no mention of refusals. ZlO , I Supplied by The British Library ~ "The world's knowledge" I L Journal of CruUve Behavior responsability: He was not interested in the artistic quality of the results, but only in the functional changes caused by a umodel psychosis" (Hartmann, 1974, p. 10), and In the auto symbolically revealing pictures that would result (Bader, 1973, p. 171). Nevertheless, his subjects did not seem reassured. Again it was Leuner who pointed out that Hartmann's sub jects were all established artists who had worked for many years to "find" or develop their own, personal style of which they were rightfully proud and protective. The prospect of having Ihis style drastically changed by a drug made them anxious about their artistic credibility (Bader, 1973, p. 168). In fact, as Hartmann had to acknowledge, many participants had started the experiment with the intention to show themselves immune, wanting to prove the authenticity of their calling. The idea was that those painters who were least affected by the drug, ipso facto had to be the greatest (Hartmann, 1974, pp. 29-30). In sum we can say that both the participants in the French and the German study subscribed to the psychedelic model, but while the first hoped to shake off everything artificial and to regenerate their art, the last feared to be confronted by some kind of truth serum or lie detector that might call into question their artistic integrity.~ To them the psychedelic model implied not "liberation" but "exposure." These fears, in turn, probably relate directly to the artists' position in the art world. Generally speaking, one might say that established artists will feel more anxious about a breakdown than ambitious youngsters aim ing for a breakthrough in their artistic development and/or career, especially since at the time stylistic continuity In one's work still counted as a sign of authenticity. Unfortunately, the professional status of the artists in the different studies is hard to determine since most of them were kept anonymous. The 30 names that Hartmann gave us, however. were, indeed, well established. fOUR PHASES Of Having considered the conditions of set and setting that are CIlEAlMTY most favorable for success, a creative breakthrough during Intoxication still cannot be guaranteed. All those present at the evaluation of Hartmann's study agreed that drugs do not contain anything creative in themselves, and cannot bring 4 Remarkably, the few artists In Volmal5 study that had not Jell "liberated~ by the drug. ·'solaled~ the experience by arguing lhat they had been "under the Influence," and therefore were exempt from responsibility ror their acUon$ (Robert, 1962, p. 65). In a pll.rll.doxltal wlI.Y Ihen, Ihe "demonIac· view of the operatlon of drugs protected them against Ihe Implications of Ihe psychedelic model. 271 - Supplied by The British Library - "The world's knowledge" -;, Brukdawn or Srukthroulih out anything that "isn't already there~ - B warning all artists and non-artists should heed.5 Beyond this, however, all argu· ment!lltion TIm into the problem of defining the concept of creativity first. In a lecture preceding the debate, Leuner had expounded Wallas'lheory that creativity can be divided,though somewhat artHicially, Into the four phases of preparation, incubation, illu mination, and verification (Wallas, 1926). According to Leuner, drugs might be useful in creative processes by prOViding "raw material" from the unconscious in the first phase, as well as by stimulating the processes of incubation and illumination, provided that enough material around a certain pre-defined problem has been gathered beforehand. These advantages, however, Leuner slaled, were always bought atlhe expense of the final phase in which material is critically selected and actively processed for the purpose ofcommunication (Leuner, 1973, pp. 143-153). Drugs, then, seem to be able to serve art in two ways. First, they might prOVide "raw material" that afterwards can be in· corporated in or Into a work of art. In this respect, however, drug experiences do nol differ rrom any other new, strange or intense experience, and the creation of the work takes place post festum, under normal circumstances, when critical dis tance is regaIned. Those artists who content themselves with presenting raw material in its raw state, confronting ·us, for example, with representations of the visions they saw during intoxication, do not communicate, except perhaps to other "initiates," Leunerstaled (1973, p. 150). History seems to prove him right here. The second way in which drugs might serve art, and the way we lire most interested In here, Is durIng intoxication. Leuner pointed out that, with respect to this question, one has to discriminate carefully between different art rorms. In the visual arts, he stated, the "oscillation" between the dirferent creative phases proceeds so rapidly as to become indistinguish able. According to him, this implied (hat during intoxication the creative process is, so to speak. "amputated" of a compo nent that especially the visual artist can hardly dispense with. A1 the same time, moreover, creative performance is disturbed by several attendi!mt handicaps in the perceptual, motoric and 5 These ob~er~ation, were o;;:onfirmed by 'e~eral American studies, like those by W. Harman elill. (1966), L Zeglln, et Ill. (1967), llnd W. McGlothlin et 81. (1967). See ror refereno;;:es; KrJppner (1985) Qr Jllniger So Dobkin de Rios (1989). 272 Supplied by The British Library· "The wand's knowledge" Journal of Cn.all..., Bthavior affective areas. But despite these objections Leuner still con sidered the use of drugs to further creativity "promising," pro vided that set and setting are most favourable, and that the artist has sufficient previous experience with intoxication not to lose control (Leuner, 1973, pp. 152·155). Although most experts that were present at the debate in 1972 seemed more or less to agree with these conclusions, Leuner seemed to have forgotten one thing. With his last con dition, he denies the possibility that "losing control" also might be profitable Jar the artist, as Volmat and Robert stressed so urgently. It may very well be that repeated sessions enable the artist to overcome the handicaps Leuner pointed out, but it was precisely the "perplexing" effect of a (first) drug experi ence that Volmat and Robert considered the sine qua non of a "liberating" artistic experience. More or less the same argument was put forward by the German art sociologist Peter Gorsen. Artists use drugs because a "stimulating drug, intoxication in its most general sense, seems pre-eminenlly suited to exercise the function of accel erating a change In style that already lies waiting to announce itself," Gorsen stated (1969, p. 172). Criticising Leuner's expo sition of drug-induced creaUvity, he argued that the negative experiences of the artists in Hartmann's film were due to the fact thalthey had resisted the productive momentum of the drug experience (like Mti.teri had resisted "smuggling in" cubist ideas). In the long run, Gorsen thought, these artists would come further by dealing creatively with experiences of disturbance, than by the normal, slow course of creativity full of detours and safeguards (Bader, 1973, pp. 165--166). "GflUOi€RIE" With the evaluation of Hartmann's study, the debate about the value of drugs in art came to an end in Europe. Leuner and Gorsen's difference of opinion, representing, one might say, a soft and a hard version of the psychedelic model, remained unsolved. In retrospect, considering the fate of "psychedelic art" (Masters f, Houston. 1968). history has proven them wrong, and lheir shared optimism seems definitely outdated. And this, in turn, brings us back to the question why artists do not use drugs all the lime. The history of drugs in art seems to confirm Gorsen's sug gestion that, as a rule, artisLs, in their capacity as artists. use drugs in the hope of provoking artistic breakthroughs. But it remains to be seen whether drug intoxication is also "pre eminently suited" for that purpose, as he natly stated. With 213 Supplied by The British Library - "The world's knowledge" Breakdown or Brnklhrough respect to this question, the Swiss art historian Michel Thevoz made a valuable suggestion. Trying to answer the question why drugs yield "more narcodollars th~n works of art," Thevoz suggested that artists do not need ~ny institutional drug use because they have intuitively cultivated methods of dissocia tion that activate endogenous consiousness ch~ngers like endomorphines or endorphines, without interfering with other processes necessary for art creation (Thevol, 1991, pp. 74-75; Thevoz, 1995, pp. 45-47). "I am convinced," Thevoz wrote earlier, "that every artist secretly invents his own personal drug to lake away the pragmatic attitude necessary for social life" (Thevo" \981, p. 59). Without being able to expand on the chemical-biological aspect, this suggestion opens a door to a new and promising stUdy into creativity, focusing on the practices with which art Ists summon their muses. Although the excentric behaviour of artists is, of course, legendary, and not all anecdotes should be believed without questioning their authenticity (Kris (, Kurz, 1934; Wittkower, 1963), this does not invalidate the hypothesis beforehand. Thevol referred to such practices as fasting, long solitary walks, long exposure 10 the sun, an intense nightlife, irregular sleeping, and voluntary isolation, and came up with the example of Paul Kfee, known as a reserved and thoughtful man, who danced before his easel before starling to paint in order to relieve himself both physically and mentally from his "realistic" obligations (Thevol, 1981, p. 59). Within the context of such disinhibiting practices, the use of drugs, I propose, belongs to a category for which the term gaucherie can be adopted. In art history, this term refers in particular to the practice of (right-handed) artists who try to work deliberately with their left hand. In more general terms, gaucherie means the intentional raising of technical barriers that force the artist to improvise and, hopefully, make him dis cover new and valuable methods of working. Besides working left-handedly, this category also includes, for example, work ing blindfolded or in darkness, at great speeds, with elongated brushes, with unfamiliar materials, media, techniques, etc. Obviously, the initia' "perplexlty" that such tricks induce soon wears off, valuable discoveries cannot be guaranteed, and the artist might be left with new habits to overcome. The same applies to the use of drugs, although the risks involved seem somewhat larger than with other techniques. But even within the context of disinhibiting practices, intoxi cation by drugs like mescalin and LSD will always occupy a 274 Supplied by The British Library - "The world's knowledge" Journal 01 Creative Bellnlcr somewhat special position, because their unusual intensity, duration and side-errects make them more or less incompat ible with the creative process of visual artists. As ArnulfRainer said about his trials with LSD: "It is always so that one can only process and Integrate small steps, small changesn (Bader, 1973, p. 170). The barriers these drugs erect often prove to be too high, even for artists. Notwithstanding Gorsen's plea, artists generally opt for methods of dislurbance that are more manageable. RefERENCes ANONYMOUS (1969, December .5). Palnllng under LSD. Time, 61. BADER. A. & ANSORGE. E. (1967).3 Kunsller + Psilocybin (film). l1l11sanne: Psychiatrische Unlversit8.lsklinlk. BADER, A. (1973). Halluzlnogene Orogen und kOnstlerische Kreativit8.t. Con/In/a psych/afrIca. J6. 1.59-176. GAUTIER, TIl. (1961a).le Hachlch. In C. Pichois (Ed.). Charles Baudelafre: Les ParadIs arlff/clels (pp. 3a.42). Pllri$; Folio (ollginally published 1843). GAUTIER, TH. (196Ib). Le Club des Hllchichins.ln C. Pichois (Ed.). Charles Baudelaire: Les Paradis arllf/dels (pp. 43-66). Paris: Folio (originally published 1846). GORSEN. P. (1969). Kunstkritik und Psychopatholo9ie. Probleme mres ZusammenhangJ.ln Da$ Bfld Pygmalions. Kunsl5oziologlsche Essays (pp. 142-195). Hamburg: Rowohlt. HARTMANN, R.P. & REESE. E. (1969). Ole kunsWche Parad/ese (film). MQnchen: Bayerisches Fernsehen. HARTMANN, R.P. (1974). Ma/ereillus Berelchen des UnbewU!5sten: Kunsl/er experimenlieren unfer LSD. Cologne: DuMont. HARTMANN, R.P. (1992). KOml//er ~e/chnen unler LSD. Ole Hllrlmann Dokumen!e. Vienna: GUlphi$che Sammlun9 Albertina. JANIGER, O. & DOBKIN DE RIoS, M. (1989). LSD and creativity. Journal of Psychoacllve Drugs, 21. 129-134. JQDES, R. (1970). "Kein Geschmilck ergrilbelt 5ich": Interprelalion einer Versuchsrelhe mit LSD. Ole BrUcke, 40. 6-9. KIPHOFF, P. (1969). Artists & LSD. Encounter, 33 (4), 34·36. KRIPPNER, S. (l985). Psychedelic drugs and creativity. Journal of P$ychoacUve Drugs, J7, 235-245. KRIS, E. & KURZ, O. (1934). Ole Legende vom Kfmsl/er: fIn hlslorischer Ver$uch. Vienna: Krystall Verlag. LEUNER, H. (1962). Die experlmenlelle Psychose. Berlin: Springer. w lEUNER, H. (1973). Krelltivit8.t und wBewusslsein5veranderung • Con/lnla psych!alrlca, J6, 141-158. MAcGREGOR. J./I1. (1989) The discovery o{Lhe arl o{Lhe Insane. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UnIversity Press. MACIJ\Y, W.S. & GUTTMANN, E. (1941). Mescaline hallucinations In artlsts. Archlvl!.,$ ofNeurolo9Y lind Psych!alry. 45, 13().J37. MASTERS, R.E.l. & HOUSTON, J. (l96B). Psychedelic art. London: Weidenftld & Nicolson. 275 Supplied by The British Library - "The world's knowledge" i' MATt::FI. L. lI952). Melee-lIn- und Lysergs!uredi!thylllmlde-Rau5ch. Cenf;n/IJ neufologfcd, 12, 146-177. MICHAUX, H. (1972). Mi!lerable miracle (2nd rev. ed.). Paris: Galllmllrd (originally published 1956). MOREAU, J ..J. (1970). DLl Hach/5ch et de I'ill/enal/on menlale. Paris: Collection "Esqulrol" (originally published 1645). ROBERT, R. (1962). eOnff/bullon ~ "etude des manl{e.'ltatlons neuro psych/ques [ndulles par lit Psllocyblne chez Ie lu)e! normal. Paris (unpublished medical disserilltlon). THeVOZ, M. (1981). Un'y III pas d'art psychedellques.ln lot TMvot (1985). Art, folie, L.S.D., graffill, etc. (pp. 5:>-(5), sJ. (5..,.): £djtion~ de l'Alre. THeVOZ, to\. (1991). l'alibi arUsllque: pourqoulles psycholrapes sont-Ils plus proliliquts en nafcodollafs qu'en oeuVlU d'stt') Psychotropes, 6 (3),73-76. THEVOZ, to\. (1995).le lrip, voyage organjs~.ln to\. TMVOI, RequIem pour la lolfe (pp. 37-47), Paris: le Di£f~rance. VOLJo\AT, R. C, ROBERT, R. (1961). Un champlgnon ha1!uclnogll:ne: Ie psilocybe mell;cana Helm. Nouvelles perspectives de recherche. Annales scfenllflques de I'Unlversit~ de Besan,on. MMIc/ne (2e Serle) 5, 15-25. WAUAS, G. (1926). The art olthought, london: Watts. WlTIKOWER, R. (1963). Born under saturn. The characlerand conduct 01 art/sis. New York: Norton. Drs. Jos ten Berge Is working for lhe Netherlands Organisalion for Scientific Resesrch (NWO) on II PhD dissertation on Drugs In Art. From OpIum to LSD. 179~1968, sllltioned at theVrije Universite;t, DepanmenlofArtHlslory. De Boelelaan 1105, Nl - 1181 HV Amsterdam. The Nelherlllnds. 276 Supplied by The British Library - "The wor1d's knowledge"