The mismatch between where your nervous system is on a given day and what your medium asks of it is one of the most common sources of creative difficulty. It is often mistaken for a block, a lack of discipline, or a sign that the work is not working. Sometimes it is none of those things. Sometimes it is a material problem.
In twenty years of working at the intersection of creativity and health, I have found that surprisingly few artists think about their medium in terms of what it actually does to their nervous system during the making. Whether a material is wet or dry, repetitive or unpredictable, tactile or visual, controlled or open-ended: these are more than aesthetic variables. They engage different sensory systems with different intensities. They have different effects on the nervous system’s regulation.
This episode goes into that research and into the frameworks that help explain it, alongside a close look at Chuck Close’s work after the 1988 spinal collapse that left him permanently in a wheelchair, and a return to artist William Utermolen who was mentioned in Episode 10.
I really hope that you’ll join and support this work:
In this episode:
The hand as a thinking organ
Neurologist Frank Wilson’s 1998 book The Hand: How Its Use Shapes the Brain, Language, and Human Culture makes the argument that the hand is not a passive instrument waiting to receive instructions from the brain but rather is a cognitive organ in its own right. The knowledge of how a material behaves under pressure, what resistance a surface has, how much force a grip needs to apply: this is not conceptual knowledge the brain sends to the hand. It is embodied knowledge that lives in the hand, built through practice, and it cannot be fully translated back through the brain alone.
This matters for health and medium because when health changes the hand’s physical relationship with material, the intelligence that was in that hand does not simply disappear. It relocates. It finds other channels. People who crocheted for decades and then lost significant vision, often due to macular degeneration in older age, describe being able to keep crocheting. Not because they could see what they were doing. Because their hands knew. The hand’s knowledge is more durable than the physical capacity health sometimes takes.
What sensory integration theory adds
Jean Ayres was an occupational therapist and neuroscientist who developed sensory integration theory in the 1960s and 1970s. Her foundational text, Sensory Integration and the Child (1979), proposed that the nervous system continuously processes sensory information from the environment in order to enable appropriate motor and behavioral responses. When that processing is efficient, the body can engage with its environment fluidly. When it is disrupted, the body may be overwhelmed by certain inputs, under-responsive to others, or disorganized in its responses.
Her framework was developed primarily with children experiencing developmental challenges, but the underlying description of the nervous system applies broadly. Every material an artist works with is engaging this system. Different materials engage different sensory systems with different intensities. These are not interchangeable.
Wet media: watercolor, clay. Strong tactile and proprioceptive input.
Dry media: graphite, charcoal. Different tactile information, less fluid, less flowing.
Resistive media: heavy clay, block printing. Requires sustained proprioceptive engagement, the joint-and-muscle sense.
Repetitive media: knitting, crochet, weaving. Rhythmic input. The nervous system uses this rhythm for regulation in ways it cannot use non-repetitive media.
Messy, open-ended materials tend to produce more emotional activation than controlled, dry, precise materials. Art therapists use material choice as a clinical variable: what medium makes sense for what the therapeutic work needs to accomplish? What the material is doing to the nervous system during the making is a real and documentable question.
The Expressive Therapies Continuum
The art therapy field developed a framework called the Expressive Therapies Continuum, refined from work begun in the 1970s. It organizes creative media along a continuum from kinesthetic engagement, the physical movement of making, through sensory, perceptual, affective, cognitive, and creative levels. Different materials and different ways of working with the same material tend to engage different levels of processing. Where a person’s nervous system can access on a given day shapes what medium serves them.
The mismatch between where you are on the continuum and what your medium demands is one of the most common sources of the feeling that the work is not working. Sometimes it is an aesthetic problem. Often it is a nervous system problem.
The framework applied to William Utermolen’s self-portrait series (above): representational visual art operates at the cognitive level of the continuum, the level where the maker is processing what they observe, constructing a spatial and formal plan, and executing it. As Alzheimer’s changed Utermolen’s ability to process at that cognitive level, his paintings moved down the continuum toward the perceptual and sensory. What the maker could access and express became less dependent on cognitive construction and more dependent on immediate sensory and affective response. The last portrait in the series, the grey field with a faint suggestion of a face, is sensory alone. A Lancet Neurology paper published in 2001 described the paintings as a neurological document as much as an artistic one. They are a record of which level of the continuum was available to him on each day he painted.
Art History: Chuck Close
Chuck Close developed in the late 1960s and 1970s a method of portrait painting that became one of the most recognizable in late-twentieth-century American art: large-scale, photorealistic, grid-based portraits built by dividing a photographic source into a precise grid and painting each unit individually. On December 7, 1988, at forty-eight, he collapsed after a museum gala speech. A spinal artery collapse left him almost completely paralyzed. Over months of rehabilitation he recovered partial movement in his arms but remained in a wheelchair permanently with limited hand control.
He returned to his studio. He painted with a brush strapped to his wrist. The reach, the angle, the duration of sessions, the physical position available: all different.
What he found was that the grid-based method he had developed for conceptual reasons twenty years earlier was exactly the method his post-collapse body could use. The grid organized the work into discrete units, each completable within the range of motion and duration available. He had built a system for one set of reasons and found himself decades later with a body it was suited to.
The late work is different from the earlier work. The cells within the grid became abstract rather than photorealistic, built from loops and diamonds that aggregate into a face at a distance but are not recognizable as portraiture up close. This happened in part because of macular degeneration, which affected his central vision and led him to rely more on peripheral vision and aggregate effect. He was still working in the same grid. He was still painting. The formal properties of the work changed because his body and his eyesight changed.
He has said in interviews that the stroke gave him the richest period of his career. He does not mean the stroke was good. He means that the constraints produced things he was not going to make any other way.
Creative Health Cartography Workbook: The Accessibility Audit
The Creative Health Cartography workbook has an exercise called the Accessibility Audit. It is practical and can be uncomfortable.
List the physical requirements of your current creative practice: posture, fine motor demands, stamina, cognitive load, sensory requirements, financial costs, space needs, time requirements. On the other side of the paper, list your current physical, cognitive, and financial reality. Where do those two lists align? Where is there friction? For every friction point, write down one modification that would reduce the gap.
You are not trying to restore the previous version of your practice. You are designing a practice that fits the body and mind and circumstances you actually have. Finding the fit rather than forcing the misfit.
If you want support working through this, Creative Health Cartography sessions go through exactly this kind of mapping together.
Get the workbook:
