Does an artist have to be JACKED UP for him to be "genuine"?
 

Inspired by: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showpo...41&postcount=9

Put another way, would Jackson Pollock or Sylvia Plath not be as highly respected if they were "well adjusted and very happy" people? Is there now a rough equation of "DEPTH" = personal suffering? This is not a new formula, mind you. We've always had the "tortured" ascetic monk whose earthly suffering and deprivation is a shorthand for otheworldly virtue and divine communion. Are "HAPPY" artists not as credible? Or is modern life so fraught with angst that the only credible definition of 'true art' is one that involves tension, strain, depression, etc...

Your thoughts?

Difficult question to answer without slipping in to generalities.

I know that some of my favorite albums over the years were recorded by artists when they were going through rough times in their life/career. There's an undefinable raw edge to their artistry that transcends musical notes.

Often times artists become banal, complacent and formulated when they end up in that comfort zone groove. That 'edge' is gone (or at least buried).

HAPPY artists are generally crap. I used to be miserable and I wrote a lot, about ten years ago. Anyone who read anything written by me would go WOW! One day I woke up and I refused to be miserable. My wife had contributed to that. So I stopped writing. When you're happy you have other stuff to do, than write crap.

Writing when miserable is nothing but a form of self-pity and an attempt to get others to pity you as well, but on a more artistic level. You're not just a fucking moron who can't get shit right, you're a tortured soul who writes beautiful combinations of words. Humans are emotion junkies, so they read that shit. I, for one, would rather read a step-by-step get-rich-quick scheme, than poetry. At least I'd learn *something* from that, not just waste my time feeling pity for yet another moron who has nothing better to do with his/her time.

Kickass response, DamageX. I agree with you that "humans are emotion junkies." The suffering, the angst of the artist is an entry point for genuine identification. I just have to wonder though.... why is it easier to identify with someone when they're going through shit than when they're going through some good times? While I do empathize with webmasters who post about bad things that happen to them I am also genuinely happy for those who post about good things. Yet, most of the time, at least when it comes to mass culture -- happy/bouncy = crap, tortured/depressed = "REAL" and "deep"

Hence the old saying, "Misery loves company".

my cousin is a amazing artist, her shit is so dark and creepy...she has never suffered in any way, in fact she grew up in a amazing family with no troubles

she is one of, if not the, best artists I have ever seen...her work amazes me every time I see it, and it is REALLY creepy dark shit

So where does she draw her inspiration from?

i am really not sure to be honest...I know she is prone to panic attacks and also I think she might have a little depression in her naturally....but to be honest, it really baffles me because her art is SOOOOOO dark

I wish I had some examples of work she has done...maybe I will take pics next time I am up there so I can show some people

I think the reason behind people assuming that "happy=crap" is because, for the most part, memories that bring about feelings of gloom or sadness tend to affect us longer than do moments of happiness & glee.

Winning a million dollars in the lottery will make you happy, but the feeling will not affect you as long, or as strongly, as the memory of a loved one passing.

I believe that feelings of depression are connected to a larger part of our mental functionality than happiness is...but I'm not gonna really get into it because it's 1:30 and I need sleep. :)

Anyway, you'd have to take into effect our surroundings, chemistry, etc to get a real answer to this question. Actually that'd give you the REASON for the answer...but ehh whatever...


later
c-lo

P.S. Enjoyed the post, SilentKnight!

VERY GOOD point. People, on the whole, tend to remember PAIN better than PLEASURE. I know that's true for me.

The problem wtih *misery* (especially in the context of self-declared "artists"), is that it tends to be self-indulgent...

"Boo-hoo, the sensitive genius, the sensitive genius..."


:1orglaugh

The call of the creative life calls me people who, frankly, should not answer that call. But since society confers not only rewards but also a form of tolerance upon "artists", there's no shortage of people lining up for the "job".

What I mean when I say self-indulgence is that they have no discipline. Creation, especially important creation, is a difficult painful thing. But it is not the same as plain-vanilla existential angst (Boo-hoo, sensitive genius).

As a result you see a lot of worthless crap getting passed off as "art" because some talentless idiot raised his hand at UCLA that day and said that a steaming turd on a plate is a masterpiece. Fuck that.

For me, true talent is a function of the individual artist's preparedness to persist through difficulty in pursuit of a *form* he has conceived in his mind. This is not the same as "Boo-hoo, my life sucks, so I'm gonna spatter paint on a canvas..." a child could do that.

I admire the writings of Paul Valery on the subject:


"Latent in every man is a venom of amazing bitterness, a black resentment; something that curses and loathes life, a feeling of being trapped, of having trusted and been fooled, of being the helpless prey of impotent rage, blind surrender, the victim of a savage, ruthless power that gives and takes away, enlists a man, and crowning injury inflicts upon him the humiliation of feeling sorry for himself." -- Paul Valery














2hp

Also, happiness can be deep, too...if it's sincere. Another reason happiness is dismissed as crap is that most art (referencing music more specifically) seems run-of-the-mill, as if the artist never questioned why they are feeling this emotion. I like music & literature that I learn something from...but all too often upbeat/happy/cheerful art of any sort has little to no depth whatsoever. There are exceptions to this, of course, but I'm just speaking in generalities.

later
c-lo

2hp/JackM you managed to blow open my mind once again, dude. But how do you counter the allegation that "art" is manufactured by "elite critics"? Whether its Matthew Arnold (1800s) or Clement Greenberg (he pretty much made Abstract Expressionism "cool")? Is there an INNATE basis for art? In essence, WHICH reality do we believe?

Damn, that's well-written and thought-provoking.

This thread's turning in to one of the better ones to come down the pipe in a while. :thumbsup

The role of the critic is to provide a framework for discourse through which the artist and society may measure themselves against the other. An artist will lose his way if he permits that discourse to drive his work -- that is, to assume a posture of *listening* to the masses, because he wishes to please.

As an artist myself, I can tell you frankly that I don't give a shit what you think when I am making something. However, as a human being, I can tell you it is very nice to hear that somebody has dug something you made -- :)







2hp

So you would agree that there is this "tightrope" between external validation and "listening to one's deeper truths"? What has been the impact of mass media to this (I'm assuming since Caravaggio at least) classic internal artistic tension?

I don't know. I just know I don't feel very proud of the things I made because I thought there was a market for them. If the market favors me, so be it. If not, at least, I followed my vision...


May & Can

I know it is the Sun
that shines upon the moon,
and not the gaze of men.
It is too soon
in our Divine Experiment
to think our will (We train our eyes
on every corner of the night.)
the same as lucid sight.

I am capricious to the bone,
the maker of a thing or two
I?d call ?of Perfect Kind?,
but own that all the best I?ve made
(the baubles of my pride)
were never those I sought by force,
but those I chanced to find.







2hp

Glad you liked my post, $5submissions...and I really agree with this quote, 2hp.
No one should create anything based on what other people might think of it...and those that do don't really 'feel' their own work anyway.

It all comes back to just 'being yourself.'

Though this is $5's thread, I'd still like to say thanks to everyone involved this thread for reminding me that people DO still think. For a minute I thought evolution had ceased. :winkwink:

Good night fellas,
c-lo

While I agree with the first part of your post, (it IS much easier to write...or to express emotions when you are depressed)...I have to dissagree with the ending... Reading, for me, should really not be considered only as a learning tool! Sure! If I come upon a good ebook or an interesting marketting article etc, I will read it! But it has nothing to do with reading poetry or fiction, which is, in my opinion, just as important, even though it doesnt serve the same purpose!...

I read articles etc. to be informed, I read poetry or fiction to be entertained, and they are both important to me...

I watch a movie to be entertained. Doesn't take me a few days to do it, as a novel would. Sorry, my time is precious. I used to waste it on crap before. Now I have better things to do with it.

no need to be so uptight about it LOL...

you do what you want to do with your time! I couldnt care less!

I usually read 15-20 min every day before going to bed...helps relaxing...so I dont think I consider reading to take up too much of my time...

and even then...dont you ever take a day off?? vacations? free time?? LOL

Sure. That's why I don't waste time on books, so I can either work or spend my time doing non-work stuff that I actually find meaningful. :winkwink:

For the record, I wasn't being uptight. I just think that books, at least for me, are a WAY overrated method of entertaining.

Reading Grisham on the beach is neither literature nor entertainment. It is only a (sad) cultural artifact.

Paper is going to become precious again, however. Digital surrogates of all types have had a dilutive effect. What you can hold in your hand acquires new materiality, new substance. Invest in tactile experiences, my friends. Virtual is great, but the bread is buttered on the tangible side. In 30 years, the only difference between porn and sex will be perspective.

A *book* in the hand, says to the world...

"I am at my leisure. Do not disturb" -- :winkwink:







2hp

Not if you're Dubya and you're holding it upside down. :1orglaugh

Especially then.

Q1 Yes they might be respected.
Q2 everyone suffers sooner or later
Q3 nobody cares if the artist is happy or not possibly besides the fans

Also art is a business so the underlying factor of your question leans toward how an artists persona is advertised to the public by people who sell the artwork.

This thread need some art

http://cieart.com/paintings/15_three_phases.jpg

http://www.wwwcomcom.com/gallery/paintings/138.jpg

http://giger.com/FineArt/Originals/I...inals14big.jpg

Here are some happy paintings

http://cieart.com/paintings/10_abstract_smile.jpg

http://artcrimes.com/pixel/p0024_sheepman.jpg

http://artcrimes.com/rota/rota1471.jpg

I believe that the true artistic mind is one that is brilliant. Artists may seem "tortured" but only because (I believe) they are more aware . . . more aware of everything. Their awareness allows them to see things that everyone else (generally speaking) might miss. Maybe if some seem depressed or despondent it is because there is an aspect of existence that, when seen from a greater awareness, causes such states of mind. I believe that the more brilliant you are, the more you find that art makes sense.

True artists create because they have to create. Being an artist is not a choice for them.

Now, there are master technicians who can paint, sculpt, sing, write, dance, etc. with the best, but a technician lacks true inspiration, creativity and vision. They practiced their craft to perfect it. True artists perfect their craft because they are driven to express and create. The problem with actually categorizing people is that we all exist in shades of gray, instead of black and white. I think we all exist in shades of brilliance (maybe there are a few exceptions on GFY). I believe that the more brilliant you are, the more you find that art makes sense.

Art is totally manufactured. I think Picaso's works are pieces of shit. However, someone, one day, way back when, said his work was genius. Someone else agreed. Then more people agreed. Now his works are priceless.

I may also think Shakespeare is a hack. So what if someone, one day, read into Hamlet and found some deeper meaning based on a certain phrase. Then someone else "realized" a deeper meaning in "How do i love thee". Pretty soon you have school systems teaching Shakespeare in English class because he was a genius.

Fuck that.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" -- that's what should define art; pretty much what 2HP was saying.

Who the hell is piccolo or picasso and that other Shacksphere guy? I'm going to go listen to my "Right Said Fred" cd. They are geniosus!

Not to mention... TOO SEXY :)

I think it depends on what is being presented.. be it paintings, photos, music..

The best of the deeper presentations are usually by those inspired by personal, emotional experiences...

The more uplifting presentations can be said of the same, but by those that are happy and full of a zest for life...

Then there are those that just have a gift to get the effect they are looking for by what they present...

Lest we not forget... Audubon killed birds..