Should Artists Suffer For Their Art?

I was watching CBS Sunday Moring this past Sunday and they did yet another wonderful piece on an artist, Edvard Munch. His most famous painting is "The Scream".
The story told of how he suffered for his art, there were several deaths in his family.
I know there are several artists that had these miserable lives, but produced these incredible works of art. Van Gogh, Egon Schiele, Edward Weston to a lesser degree, for example.
All of these artists were at their heights of their careers during the same time period, the late 19th to early 20th centuries.
Was "sufferring for your art" the thing to do at that time or what?
I don't suffer for my art. Why should I?! Life is good.
What are your thoughts?
Brian

Well - I think suffering is part of the human condition. This concept of happiness as an entitlement is fairly recent to humanity. I would think (and hope) that suffering is only one of the many human conditions that artists are compelled to represent in their creations.

As for artists suffering? Well, I tend to think that mental illness generally hinders one's ability to create. Take Pollock - if I remember correctly, he created his most revolutionary works when he was not drinking. Fortunately, excepting a few years of moderate depression in my mid twenties, I've got pretty good coping skills and am not haunted by addiction or mental illness demons, so my response may be slightly pollyanna and not be well informed.

Interesting query!