It would probably be fair to generalize that certain types of artist are more prone to eccentricity. It is such a popular cliche in the west and, as a result, we probably have more than our share and our fine art no doubt reflects this potential. Being a fine artist offers more than a little license to be self-indulgent as well as encouragement to be uniquely individual and to affect a few ideosyncratic behaviors if we wish. I haven't noticed that the "crazies" are better represented among the greats (other than among surrealists and dadaists maybe) tha any other arts population.
Artists probably do have something of a deserved reputation for sensuality and unreliability. From Africa I have read that it was not unheard of for a King to place an artist under house arrest essentially, until a commission was completed. Uncompleted commissions are far from rare in western art history for that matter as well. So give me a portion of my fee up front and maybe I'll party so much I'll forget what it was I was going to do? (or maybe it's more likely I'll begin to doubt my ability to live up to the commission and develop cold feet)
I have to admit that I'm just a teensy bit jealous of those (male) artists whose egos are so large that their self-indulgences so inseperable from their identity as artists... (so many wives and mistresses!) ;-)
Mark Alexander wrote:
>Maybe I'm not like all artists, but I sure am weird. Just ask Trish!
> Jayna Huffines wrote:
>I have also heard that all artists have to be crazy.
>I will say that most artists I know are really
>interesting people, maybe a bit eccentric- but crazy?