Aspies For Freedom

Anyone else agree that a posthumous diagnosis of Schizotypal Personality Disorder fits the great Dali?

Perhaps the next step would be to look into whether any relatives of his had Schizophrenia, as they say Schizotypal PD is more definitively linked to Schizophrenia than is the Schizoid (which more-or-less includes the same behavioral aspects of AS.)

Of course he was a very brilliant, creative individual to begin with, but from what I know, his paranoid ideation tendencies, "magical thinking," incessantly eccentric behavior, intense fascination with dreams, odd dressing, highly unorthodox/strange beliefs... all of this was lifelong for Dali, according to my research (he was a Special Interest of mine about 3 years ago.)

I know some of you may not agree with this, but what I've read about Schizotypal PD matches very well with Dali, and I wonder if this condition may be partly behind his "extraordinary creativity."  His strong ability to use the "dream world" in waking life is correlated with what is known about Schizotypy.

Secondly, it has been shown that some who have developed the actual condition of Schizophrenia can have unusual cognitive abilities.   There seems to be a correlation between the Schizophrenic brain and a "superhuman" pattern-recognition ability--see John Forbes Nash as one such example.  In his case, I speculate that there's an intersection between his version of Schizophrenia and his strong Mathematical ability, which produced some unique results.

Anyone else agree/disagree?  I'd hope no one would ridicule my ideas here... I do not claim to be an expert in Schizophrenia nor a scholar, so rather than cut me down, perhaps offer something constructive instead.

Any other famous Schizotypals that come to mind?

I've to admit that the only work of Dali that I'm aware of that is absolutely brilliant is the condom he filled with semen to have it sent back to his father with a note saying it was the only thing he owed him.

Still no need for you to tactlessly trash an artist I happen to consider brilliant, without any regard for my feelings on the matter.

Now, how 'bout back to the original question?

I'm always interested in post-humous diagnosis. Its always reasonably subjective since the person isn't there to really speak. That said, I don't know quite enough about Dali to say anything about him really...

But I do know from my own research into other artists that so much of their "revolutionary" paintings was really an accurate representation of how they really viewed the world rather than an abstraction of reality that some might have been led to believe. For example, Vincent VanGogh (I know... cliched artist... blah blah blah) had some serious disorder (I apologize as I don't remember the specifics, big help I'm sure) and the meds that they had him on literally made light blurry and/or have a halo. Thus his paintings, specifically his later works, were more of a "realistic" nature than what we give him credit for. The absynthe probably didn't help too much either. Not that I'm saying by any stretch that he or other artists are only good if they are "realistic" because I don't believe that at all.

darn... reread my post... edits as follows.

That last bit I'm trying to say that if Dali was Schizotypal, it would make sense since his paintings are so different and bizarre. (I mean that in a nice way, really!)

Always interested in art history reparte. What else you got, Batman?   Are you a Dadaism fan? The art of nothing is always interesting. I always like Miro's works too. (Completely different than Dada, to be clear.)

And don't tell me you didn't get into Surrealism without checking out Frida Kahlo... now that's a cool chick.

uh-oh... you got me started on the road to art history again. bad.

I know a few things about art (and art history.)  I love art but more specifically, the Dadaist/Surrealism and Expressionism movements.  I found those artists who revolutionized their medium by sheer creativity, trying things that had never been done before, to largely be fascinating individuals.

Of course I like Miro, as well.

Indeed, his profound eccentricities are well-documented (and lifelong), although you have to wonder if someone who genuinely had Schizotypal PD could have accomplished as much as he did.  This is where my hypothesis falters, in a big way.

One criteria for Schizotypal PD is a need for social isolation and poor social skills, that doesn't really fit Dali (I know a lot about him, he's a former special interest), but then I suppose you might have some incredibly gifted individuals who have a few Schizophrenic tendencies here and there.

AFAIK Schizotypal PD is characterized by a loose collection of positive Schizophrenic traits (paranoia, "loose associations," unorthodox beliefs, overactive imagination, and so on) without any of the genuine impairments you find in classic Schizophrenia.

Perhaps I should do some more research.

I had an art professor who once told us that the line between an artist's mind and a pschitzophrenics mind is very grey. I always found that interesting.

Futurism is another interesting movement. Really all of those that exploded in the first part of the 20th century are just riveting. I could read about them forever. I just got done reading/looking at a book about McIntosh (art nouveau) and his flowers. It was very interesting. Especially if you compare his early work to his later work, he did a lot of patterns later in life. I'm a big pattern fan. Although admittedly art nouveau is the new impressionism when it comes to "trendy art" in mainstream america.

I always liked Dada because of the absolute nothingness of it. And how dada means so many different things.

I like that your morphing two solid interests; art and psychology. So interesting to think how closely the two are related... and how much power those "crazy artists" have wielded over our present society. My own personal interest is how the different art movements inter-related and fluidly moved from one concept to another. Sorry if the last few sentences didn't make much sense.

ouch that's harsh, but funny.

It was my understanding that his parents supported his talent and built him his first studio when he was still a child inside of their summerhome

On a side note to my previous contribution to the thread I must admit that it was a poor one. My general dislike of the whole genre of Surrealism shines through way to much and poor Salvador becomes a target to unleash grime upon. I know darn little about the Dali behind the mystery (if he was a mystery).

I think that the thing about surrealism that I can't bear is that the picture is the end. The ideas have been given a final form in oil but it is just ideas. The familiar things of everyday life seen through the mist of dreams.

Marcel Duchamp remain my favorite.

Another thing to look at:  Picasso was Dyslexic, and there seems to be some sort of reciprocal abilities (to offset the negative) that those with dyslexia often have.

Hmm, I don't know about the bold print.  Personally I don't think it makes a lot of sense, as everything I've read about Dali points to precociousness, and anyway, just look at some of the things he painted and some of his writings and that's all the proof you need that clearly he never had any "learning problems."

Somebody sent me all these beautiful pictures done by Dali and made into a movie file. I knew of a few of his paintings through doing art at high school and the main one I recall is the one with the melting clocks.

I like his paintings but know little about his life and whether or not he might have been schizotypal or not. It doesn't matter that much to me.

Btw, I do think it's possible Van Gogh could have been aspie. I saw a movie where he his character had a lot of trouble with telling the truth too bluntly and often getting into fights with other people because he was so sensitive and idealistic.

It was in the mid80ies that I first became aware of things like Futurism, Mayakovsky, Dada, Cabaret Voltaire, Cubism, Surrealism, Duchamp, Modernism Poetry and so on; movements by artists that, to a large extent, came out of the upper middle class. One of the first books that I came to study quite close was Hans Richter's "Dada - Art & Anti-Art." Almost all of the artists mentioned were men. That is one thing that has changed since then. More and more of the female artists of that period are being uncovered and some of them were as advanced in their art as their male counterparts and some of them were so ahead of their time that they were the avant garde. Hilma af Klint is one example but for reasons that I'm not aware of she decided that her artwork would not be exhibited until after her death. So nobody really knew how ahead of her time that she was until the 80ies, when her work were exhibited at the Museum of Modern Art (Moderna Museét in Stockholm, Sweden).

Most of the female artist married other artists and for different reasons "gave up" their artistic careers. Two exceptions to this rule were Greta Knutsson who married Tristan Tzara, and Sophie Teuber who married Jean/Hans Arp. It's my feeling that these two pairs were ahead of their time in that they remained equal.