There are abounding theories on the source of creativity and/or genius. Over the course of human history, creativity, madness and genius have oft times been interlinked, with different times, social customs, and philosophies deciding which term more closely described certain thoughts or behaviors. In times of science, ideas of visionaries are madness - in times of religious based social mores, thoughts of science were deemed blasphemous. Creativity and genius are joined by inventiveness, but madness has taken a new place in the equation.

With an increase interest in the artworks of disturbed individuals, there has come a belief that one must be in some manner disturbed in order to create, to have genius. Forget that Einstein was not a mental patient. Forget that for thousands of years many people of varying degrees of mental disorders created nothing. But, look only at a remarkable paintings by patients of psychiatric facilities and believe.
Salvadore Dahli was known to have a fascination with mental disorders to the point of trying to encourage them within his own mind to 'further his art'. Is the desire to cultivate 'insanity' to better create a sign of a mental disorder? Dahli obviously had talent, the methods he used - one being a spoon suspended in his hand above a plate, when he would drift off into sleep, the spoon would drop onto the plate awakening him, he would then attempt to paint what was in his mind - were his way of bypassing his more logical conscious mind, to reach the more illogical, more abstract subconscious. Was he a madman, or a scientist?

Today, with the onslaught of emotion-based thinking in a high-tec world, man has come even further away from his more abstract subconscious and right-hemisphere thinking. Many attempt to access the images held there through self-inflicted trama, believing if previous artists suffered for their work, they too could suffer and improve their work.

Much like the young blues player who comes from a rich family, but goes off on his own believing he must 'suffer' to know his art. But the suffering is affectation. The player spends so much time nurturing his pain and sacrifice, he has no time to find his creativity. He will run through the same scales any child can learn and force the 'feelings' of his hardship upon them with a false conviction that rings shallow. He'll prize his 'art' as the child of his pain. When he runs into a critic, the critic is always wrong. He, himself, knows of the depths of his suffering, so how can the critic not feel what he is expressing? False, or self-inflicted suffering, does have a feel to it ...a pale, bland feel. Not all blues artists suffered, that is the first mistake in his thinking. Those who did suffer, didn't suffer 'for' their work, their music was an escape from their suffering, it served as a reprieve from their areas of pain. They wanted their struggles to end. They didn't purposely pursue hardship to 'further their art'.

Artists, geniuses, have a desire to create. Beethoven's deafness wasn't an affliction that helped him with his music. It was a boulder in his path that he worked his way around. Monet's loss of vision wasn't a glorious awakening of the Impressionist movement, but something he worked in spite of, because his desire to create was strong.
Creative people have to create. Despite the circumstances they will create, not because of them.

Van Gogh is the hero to a new generation of would-be artists who believe he is the hallmark of great talent. His suffering, his pain, how he expressed them, rather than view him as a man of talent and creative temperment who painted despite his ailments, they view the ailments as the impetus for his work. If ailments be impetus, what of DaVinci? Great artist, scientist, scholar ...what manner of pain was present in his life to cause such wonderful achievements?

Those with mental disturbances who create, usually schizophrenics, can have work of great imaginary skill, but most have imitative skill alone.
You will find examples of mental patients work in most psychology books, but the examples are from an almost too small to count minority of mental patients, with the far greater percentage showing no talent.
Insanity does not begat creativity. The percentage of creative people within mental institutions is about the same as the percentage of creative people within the general population, but the mental patients don't try to hide their creative thoughts, while those within society sometimes do. Not for fear of being thought insane, but mostly out of lack of faith in their ideas.

The creative mind works differently than the non-creative sort. A clock can melt, as time itself seems fluid. It isn't a mind of strict rules of how things are, that in itself is the difference between affectated art and the work of a creative person. Once an artist or inventor decides there are rules on how to create, they have tainted the creative process and that taint shows in their work. They mimick the artists or inventors they believe were great, their style, and what they believe was their mode of inspiration. They kill off any piece of their own creativity, opting instead to suffer and sacrifice for the sake imitative work that lacks the passion of those they admire.