Blocked creativity occupies a pivotal diagnostic position within the depth-psychological corpus, functioning simultaneously as symptom, psychic signal, and metaphor for broader disruptions of libidinal and archetypal flow. The literature discloses at least four distinct etiological frameworks. First, and most elaborated, is the Jungian-archetypal account: Clarissa Pinkola Estés locates blockage in the negative animus, a damaged intra-psychic agency that actively attacks the creative impulse the moment the pen is lifted or the canvas confronted. Marion Woodman extends this analysis into the body, arguing that where the instinctual split between flesh and spirit is profound, healing images may arise but creative energy cannot complete its circuit. Second, a neurological framework emerges in Iain McGilchrist’s hemispheric model: left-hemisphere over-control suppresses the unconscious incubatory processes on which creativity depends, effectively driving the generative moment further into darkness the more consciously it is pursued. Third, Levine’s somatic reading treats blocked creativity as the psychophysiological toll of trauma, illustrated dramatically by the physician who, in treating migraine, inadvertently extinguished his patient’s mathematical genius. Fourth, Thomas Moore advances a soul-ecological position, reframing the artist’s block not as pathology but as the shadow integral to creativity itself — an argument that the blank page belongs to the creative cycle rather than interrupting it. Tension persists, however, between those who pathologize the block and those who invite it as teacher, and between cultural analyses — over-responsibility, perfectionism, the compulsive domestic — and intrapsychic ones centered on complex, animus wound, or severed instinct.