Mar 22, 2026 22:00:00

Is 'suffering' an essential element for great creative work?

When reading biographies and histories of writers and artists, you sometimes find that they have experienced immense suffering in the past, or that they created outstanding works during times of great hardship. Therefore, some might think that 'suffering is necessary for great creative work.' Psychoanalyst

Grant Brenner explains whether suffering is actually necessary for creative work.

Must Creativity Necessarily Come at the Price of Misery? | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/experimentations/202601/must-creativity-necessarily-come-at-the-price-of-misery

Brenner acknowledges that some creators do indeed engage in creative work during difficult times and may come to understand the essential meaning of creation that they might not have grasped during peaceful times. However, he argues that we need to reconsider whether this experience should be used to generalize that 'you must suffer to create great work.'

First and foremost, Brenner points out that 'creation as a reaction to suffering' and 'suffering as a source of creativity' are different things. For example, for people suffering from depression or other mental illnesses, creative activity may become a lifeline for survival, allowing them to process unbearable suffering through creative work.

The works produced through these creative activities should be viewed not as 'byproducts of depression and suffering,' but as 'objects of resistance against depression.' Confusing these two obscures the fact that people engaged in creative activities as a means of survival.

People like to hear stories about creators who overcame suffering and hardship to produce great works, but they rarely talk about people who didn't create despite suffering, or those who created in joy and quiet immersion. Brenner argues that

confirmation bias is at play here, as people tend to only gather evidence and information that supports their own beliefs.

Brenner points out that people tend to misinterpret cause and effect when they idealize things. 'Suffering is mythologized and elevated to something essential. And they can't accept the simpler interpretation that 'suffering is just suffering, and creativity arises alongside or despite suffering,' and instead conclude that suffering produced creative results,' he said.

While psychoanalysis tends to focus on stimulating pleasure and pain, Brenner points out that small everyday joys, quiet immersion, and slowly accumulating satisfaction are often overlooked. As a result, there is a risk that uplifting treatments for the patient may be avoided when both the patient and the therapist implicitly understand that 'pain is necessary for creation.'

Brenner states, 'Both sides may unconsciously or consciously find value in suffering, and may even enjoy it in a sadomasochistic way. Neither side challenges this premise, and concerns arise that treatment may cause the patient to lose their creative talent. As a result, the direction of treatment becomes limited within a framework that views health as questionable and treats suffering as sacred.'

It's important to be cautious about viewing suffering as a source of inspiration, as creativity and playfulness can sometimes be more pronounced when there is no pain. Brenner advises, 'The fear that creativity will be lost when suffering subsides is very strong. Proceed cautiously and confidently, while being wisely wary of commonplace solutions and panaceas.'