Printable View
is drug usage justified as far as art and expressions are concerned?
is it ok to write or indulge arts under the influence if so why?
many claim to have had second comings enlightenement and better expressive powers when writing or visualising art.
one book that comes to mind is ''Clockwork Orange'' written under the influence of opium admittedly by its own author Anthony Burgess.
what are your thoughts?
Drugs have nothing in common with creativity.
Tell that to the mushroom munching prophets of the empty chambers, who decorate their walls with visual tales of their travels to the lands beyond sight and sound. But actually coffee is good too. Or water. Or wine. Or love. Or sex.
It actually doesn't matter whether 'it is ok' or not. If it works, use it.
'Spongebob and Squarepants' makes more sense to stoned people. It just does.
It depends on inhibitions. Those who have been repressed the most find new possibilities under the influence of any drug. That's the bottomline.
I would think the use of drugs is more comparable to the enjoyment of artistic output, not the creation of it. One would need to look more at intuitive processes and specific individual talent rather than drug use.
lots of people think the opposite but that is another story. I guess some feel the need to express thoughts through hallucinations.Quote:
Originally Posted by hannah_arendt
mushrooms indeed have been around since the beginning of time. many cultures have used them to their great outdoors advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Thorne
I guess stimulants work differently on different people the only about associating them with arts is that one may not recognise one's work because one was under the influence I don't know. dependencies are tricky when it comes to expressing them with art I think. :)
'Enjoyment' doesn't really capture the experience of using drugs like LSD and mushrooms. There is the potential for great pleasure (and possibly a lot of psychological pain) with these and other drugs, but there's a reason why many people, in addition to the famous advocates of entheogen use like Huxley, describe it as a spiritual experience. This is also why entheogens have been used, with a lot of success, to help cope with alcoholism and PTSD. They can change your consciousness dramatically even if only for a brief period while the effects of the drug are at their peak. So, it is possible that they directly influence artistic creations. I wouldn't rule it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Read the creation when you're straight... Ginsberg might have done better if he kept his head screwed on. I guess one thing that irks me is the assumption that people with mental disorders are considered to be more creative. They might cross their conventional boundaries when cycling but actually they are already gifted and it doesn't necessarily mean the work they produce in this state is of better quality. I would say it is the same for drug users.
Marijuana used to make me better at music but worse at writing.
...it is possible that they directly influence artistic creations. I wouldn't rule it out.
Of course. Everything an artist experiences CAN influence his or her artistic creations. However... there is no magic pill that is likely to turn someone into an artist if they don't already have it in them. My own experience with alcohol and painting has made it clear that the work is not likely to benefit. Poor judgment and a decrease in motor skills and manual dexterity never looks good the morning after.
I've been looking up "entheogen" since you mentioned it. I've never heard the word before. However, I wonder if there is evidence that entheogens provide changes to the brain as some claim meditation techniques provide: http://io9.com/how-meditation-change...el-b-470030863Quote:
Originally Posted by Shevek
I can see how meditation might help with creativity, but entheogens make me suspicious. I'm not against using them. I just don't see the connection between them and creativity. There is a belief that artists live an odd sort of life, but if one breaks out of that idea and considers art as just a job some people engage in, and creativity something that even equity and bond traders have, one might be closer to the truth.
I don't know if creativity is innate though (I say this not to be glib but because I really cannot take one side or the other) - as in it's something you either have or don't have, and once you have it, you have it forever. If it isn't innate, and is something that develops with experience, entheogens might help someone express their talents or at least inspire them to do so. So if art is a job, entheogens might help some people create better art. The keywords there of course are "might" and "some people" - I wouldn't try to argue that everyone, or even every artist, would suddenly become more creative with mind-altering substances.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
As for meditation, it might be able to help the creative process but I'm not sure why you accept that and not entheogens. Some of the effects of meditation seem similar to an entheogen experience. For instance, empathy - LSD has been known to temporarily destroy the user's ego and make them feel "at one" with everybody and everything. Same to a lesser extent with MDMA. I can see this not only causing a change in someone's worldview, but how they express their views through art. If an artist finds his or her creativity blocked, maybe an entheogen experience could inspire them? This is where I see the connection between drugs and creativity - not that it WILL lead to creativity or even that it will always enhance it, but it's a possibility to consider amid the stigma that still lumps entheogens together with other substances like heroin, cocaine, and the like.
But if creativity is innate and drugs have no effect then I would genuinely like to hear that argument.
Creativity isn't innate if meditation can improve it by changing the brain. The reason I mentioned meditation is because the article said it helped with creativity, based on fMRI results by changing the brain, but I'm not sure how they measured increase in creativity. What I have heard about drugs is that they act on the reward system that encourages sexual behavior and commitment. Perhaps one could avoid the need for entheogens by just getting into a positive relationship. I guess I would be convinced of the benefits of entheogens if fMRI data was available that showed they improved the brain in some way that affected creativity.
However, I'm just piecing together this puzzle. I don't really know much about it.
That particular effect is created by the neurotransmitter dopamine. The activation of dopamine is generally most intense from stimulants like cocaine and meth. Chemically there is more going on with entheogens. Unlike those two stimulants there's no way to predict how a person will react to entheogens (there are some exceptions like MDMA, but even then the effects tend to vary more than cocaine and meth). I'm sure a satisfying relationship would help creativity as well but entheogens are still unique.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
We have more data about demographic patterns of drug use and their effects on behaviour than we do about their potentially positive psychological effects. I'm guessing it would be hard to research something like LSD since the effects are so unpredictable (although we do know that entheogens in general are relatively safe). Also since LSD became popularized by Timothy Leary, who was one of the first to associate LSD with counterculture, the backlash from the press and politicians of all stripes in North America (don't really know about Europe and elsewhere) has chilled the earlier enthusiasm for researching the positive effects of entheogens.
Here's a survey of some research done on the topic: http://io9.com/5878523/what-your-min...weed-and-booze
The article didn't make much sense to me. I'll have to re-read it later, but this is what I would like to compare with the effects, say, meditation has on the brain.