Eg you create art to cope with depression, so your depression created all your art and it’s actually not yours. And if it’s popular or successful, your depression is talented and successful, not you.
Eg you create art to cope with depression, so your depression created all your art and it’s actually not yours. And if it’s popular or successful, your depression is talented and successful, not you.
Are you really making an argument akin to, since it’s your hands that create art, it’s your hands that are creative, not you??
Can’t you see how the question you pose doesn’t even make sense?
Depression is a state of mind, not inspiration for art. Depression is however a filter through which the art may be interpreted. But it’s a t most only part of a way more complex process.
I’m not, actually. Just wondering why crediting a disorder for creating anything is normalized to the point you’re the problem for wanting to be credited for your own work and be seen as more than a disorder.
It’s such a stupid argument, tell me about it. Could you imagine your disorder creating all your art and accomplishing everything you’ve done? Who would want to be seen as a corpse animated by a disorder?
But all of the entire world will blindly agree if that disorder was the stupid puzzle piece one. No questions asked, that shit made all your art and you should be proud of being a vessel for a disorder that controls everything about you.