Esto es lo que dice Rothenberg (p.141):
"Evidence for the diagnosis of Pollock’s bipolar illness is based on
the report by his treating psychiatrist Dr. Richard Hendersen of periods
of “violent agitation” alternating with “paralysis or withdrawal”
(p. 14) (26), another therapist Dr. Violet de Laszlo’s direct assessment
that Pollock was “manic depressive” (p. 852) (27), and his wife Lee
Krasner’s description of his extremes of temperament and behavior as
follows: “Whatever Jackson felt, he felt more intensely than anyone
I’ve known; when he was angry, he was angrier; when he was happy,
he was happier; when he was quiet, he was quieter” (pp. 9–10) (26).
Like Munch, Pollock also used alcohol in excess to deal with his mood
upheavals."
Por otro lado, el autor dice que NO hay evidencia entre el TBP y la creatividad. Pues la creatividad requiere de procesos cognitivos en los momentos en que la persona está "sana". Es decir que, un bipolar puede ser creativo, pero no lo es por ser bipolar. Por el contrario, la creatividad surge en momentos de equilibrio entre los dos polos. Para ilustrarlo Rothenberg acude a los casos de Pollock y Munch.
En sus conclusiones (p. 143), el autor nos da elementos para continuar nuestro debate sobre si el TBP es un don o una maldición:
"Bipolar disorder, although it may exist concurrently with creativity,
does not convey a special gift. Creative persons must struggle to deal
with or overcome the effects of illness through psychological creative
processes which are in themselves healthy and adaptive. The disorder
itself, like any mental illness, brings suffering rather than accomplishment."
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario