Random Drug Testing for Artists
There’s much talk of performance enhancing drugs in sports these days,
particularly steroids in baseball. The objections are on several
levels. There are obvious health concerns, since some of the
drugs have side effects that can cause harm in the long run.
People also feel that medical enhancements give an unfair advantage to
players who use them, whether across time or in direct
competition. Is it really a great accomplishment when an athlete
on drugs shatters old home run records? There’s also a related
concern that sees drug use as a form of cheating. It detracts
from the purity of human accomplishment by adding an extra factor to
the basic mix of talent and hard work.
This gets me thinking, why don’t we raise similar
concerns about the quality of our art? At least for a century or
so, creative artists have clandestinely or openly relied on various
illegal drugs and narcotics for creative inspiration. A US government
experiment
from the 1950’s demonstrates the effects of LSD on an artist’s
sketches. If the source of creativity is drug induced chemical
reactions in the brain, does the art really have value? We’re no
longer really celebrating the unique talents or inspiration of the
artist. For sure, not everybody can become a Picasso by taking
drugs, just as most of us couldn’t get into the Olympics by taking
steroids. But isn’t there something impure and objectionable to
creativity that requires performance enhancing drugs? I don’t
have an answer to this question. After all, spontaneity and
randomness in nature can be breathtakingly beautiful. Similarly,
the output of unusual chemical reactions in somebody’s brain can surely
produce compelling results. It would be interesting and
informative, though, if museums created “drug-free” zones devoted
exclusively to artists who do not rely on drugs – just to get a sense
of how much creativity human beings can muster on their own.
