This literature review (1989) looks at creativity and LSD. This is mostly done through the lens of artists who painted over 250 works.
The effects of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) on creativity were examined in a unique experiment in the late 1950's. In this project, artists were asked to draw and paint a Kachina doll both prior to and one hour after the ingestion of LSD. Evaluations of these artistic productions were analyzed by a professor of art history in order to investigate the impact of LSD on artistic creativity. Certain representative changes were found in the artists' predominant style. The most significant change was noted in those artists whose styles were intrinsically representational or abstract to more expressionistic or nonobjective. Other changes noted included the following: relative size expansion; involution; movement; alteration of figure/ground and boundaries; greater intensity of color and light; oversimplification; symbolic and abstract depiction of objects; and fragmentation, disorganization, and distortion. Many artists judged their LSD productions to be more interesting and aesthetically superior to their usual mode of expression. The above-mentioned changes contributed to the artists' convictions that they were fashioning new meanings to an emergent world.
Earlier debate about lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) has often included claims that the drug can enhance creativity, but objective evidence has been scarce and inconclusive. Janiger and colleagues note a literature composed largely of self-reports, anthropological anecdotes and a few small, methodologically weak experimental studies; some of those prior investigations suggested enhanced aesthetic qualities among practising artists, whereas studies using unselected student samples tended not to find improvements on standard creativity tests. Capturing the transient and subjective elements of creative experience has therefore remained challenging. This paper reports on an art subproject embedded within a larger experimental programme begun by Janiger in 1955, in which the effects of LSD on artistic production were assessed under controlled, nonmedical conditions. The study aimed to compare artworks made by professional artists before and during the acute effects of LSD, using a repeated-task design in which artists drew and painted a Deer Kachina both prior to and one hour after ingesting the drug, and to subject those works to formal stylistic analysis in order to characterise drug-related changes in artistic style and perception.
Papers cited by this study that are also in Blossom
Harman, W. W., McKim, R. H., Mogar, R. E. et al. · Psychological Reports (1966)
Papers in Blossom that reference this study
Murphy, R. J. · Psychopharmacology (2024)
Costa, M. A. · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (2022)
Humphrey, D. E., Mckay, A. S., Primi, R. et al. · Imagination Cognition and Personality (2014)
Janiger's larger clinical project, conducted with cooperation from Sandoz Pharmaceutical Corporation, involved more than 2,000 administrations of LSD to 848 volunteers; the extracted text reports a dose of 2.5 μg/kg of body weight. Participants were selected from applicants on health and demographic criteria, and sessions took place in two nonclinical settings: a comfortable living room and an artist's studio with facilities for painting, drawing and sculpting; an adjacent garden was also available. Subjects were unobtrusively monitored during the acute drug period and encouraged to provide written accounts as soon as practicable; follow-up questionnaires were obtained at one month and one year by about 70% of participants. The art subproject developed after an early practising artist requested something to draw during a session; a decorative Deer Kachina from Janiger's office mantel was chosen as a standard subject. Almost seventy practising professional artists ultimately participated and produced roughly 250 drawings and paintings over seven years. For the present analysis, a Deer Kachina series was selected for detailed comparison: fifty-six before-and-after items from twenty artists, plus twenty-five additional items by eight artists (self-portraits and free drawings), yielding a total of eighty-one items (seventy-three paintings and eight drawings). Stylistic analysis of the artworks was carried out by Carl Hertel, professor of art history, who evaluated pieces using eight formal categories: dominant style (representational, abstract, expressionistic, nonobjective etc.), compositional characteristics, linear characteristics, stroke characteristics, textural characteristics, colour characteristics, value characteristics (use of light and dark), and dimensional characteristics (suggestion of volume/mass versus flatness). The heterogeneous contemporary styles of the participating artists and the absence of longitudinal pre-experimental baselines for individuals are noted as constraints on the analytic design.
Overall, the most prominent changes in the Deer Kachina series occurred in dominant style, colour, line and texture. Shifts away from representational depiction toward expressionistic or nonobjective approaches were common. Among ten artists classified as predominantly representational before LSD, four shifted to an expressionistic style, three to nonobjective work, and one to a predominantly abstract approach focused on a part of the Kachina. Of six artists who were predominantly abstract pre-LSD, three moved to nonobjective styles, two became noticeably expressionistic with radical distortions of composition and colour, and one remained essentially abstract. Two artists who were already expressionistic maintained that primary tendency, though their articulation of elements such as line changed. Summarising categorical shifts, eight of the observed changes were to an essentially expressionistic style and six to a nonobjective style; in total fourteen changes were to styles prioritising alteration of the representational image. Two changes were to a predominantly abstract style and two were noted as ambiguous or unclassifiable. Typical manifest alterations across the dataset included fragmentation and disorganisation, enlargement or focus on parts rather than whole, intensification of colour and light, loosening of line toward either flowing curvilinear or sharply angular forms, and stronger textural effects (heavier impasto or more pronounced surface articulation). Regarding technical competence and subjective appraisal, many artists judged their LSD-period productions to be more interesting or aesthetically superior to their usual work. The investigators report that most artists retained a residual imprint of their pre-existing aesthetic preferences (particularly in colour choice and technical facility), and that in cases where technical proficiency was limited pre-LSD, the drug sometimes appeared to increase confidence or articulateness. Follow-up questionnaires indicated that, for many participants, the LSD experience produced enduring changes in understanding and direction of their artistic development.
Janiger and colleagues interpret the stylistic shifts as reflecting robust perceptual changes under LSD that are broadly consistent with other hallucinogen reports: loosening of conventional mental sets, heightened associative activity, synesthesia, sharpened colour perception, increased attention to detail, and altered figure–ground relations. These perceptual transformations are seen as contributing to the observed moves toward expressionistic and nonobjective modes, and to features commonly associated with what artists and prior studies have labelled heightened creativity. The authors are cautious about asserting that LSD produces categorically superior artwork. Although many pieces were judged more interesting on a sensational level and artists often reported lasting beneficial changes, the analysis indicates that technical quality was not uniformly improved and that a strong residue of individual aesthetic preference remained. Methodological limitations are acknowledged: the participant group was stylistically heterogeneous, making it difficult to isolate drug effects from pre-existing tendencies; there may have been bias in artists' self-evaluations; and an ideal longitudinal within-artist design was not available. Earlier literature is situated similarly: studies using unselected student samples tended not to demonstrate enhanced creativity, whereas small studies of practising artists more often reported perceived benefits. Finally, the investigators note that explanations for the observed effects may lie either in biochemical changes to perception induced by LSD or in the individual's cultural and artistic history, and they present the findings as a visual record of consciousness changes that may inform understanding of certain aspects of the creative process.
Most artists in the series were able to exercise at least some technical proficiency under the influence of LSD, and artistic productions made during sessions were not inherently inferior to works produced in ordinary states. Many participants judged their LSD-period work to be more interesting or aesthetically superior, and a number reported lasting changes in their understanding and practice that influenced subsequent artistic development. The authors suggest that an apparent disorganised or confusional phase may reflect a creative crisis that can lead to a new level of integration and expression, and they leave open whether the ultimate cause of these metamorphoses is biochemical, cultural, or both.