I saw this speech on TED http://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_g...ge=en#t-731263 so I wanted to make a thread. Do you believe artists are like mediums of a mystical force, or more like people with good predisposition to their craft? Inspiration or genius?
I watched the last portion of the talk where the link began and I thought Elizabeth Gilbert did a good job of describing the creative process.
I think creativity is not just the result of individual genius and artists, as well as all of us for that matter, are indeed mediums of a mystical force, but as Gilbert mentioned we have to do our part and show up. We have some freedom to exercise in the process.
To test if I really believed that I would ask myself: Do you really believe that there are conscious muses out there and all of this is not just a projection of your isolated, individual, egotistical self? This would make me pause to make sure I was not lying to myself. After that moment of consideration, I would answer, "Yes".
I would say they are more like people with good predisposition to and talent for their art. They are all inspired by the internal within themselves and the external without, and only some of them are geniuses. But there is no more need for God, or some aesthetic Gnosticism, for such brilliant activity than there is such need for brilliance in thought or athletics. Humans are artistic beings by nature who need no God to be brilliant at that natural activity.
As for creativity, that is a exercise of image and value in most aspects. It's something already in placed from caveman to now and can be passionately alleged for, you want to know where creativity came from? That's a pretty stupid question since it's not like wisdom and science can discover the psychological and emotional clues that guide us to the source of creativity. I mean, creation myths and folklore, I think we need to have these things in order for us to sustain creativity throughout ages. It's not the matter of where does everything come from, that's just impossible in views since it's not a reasonable question since it might be created by humans. At the same time, the value of mythicism is so great that there hasn't been a thread that I seen tried to discuss it without always asking questions that lets the answer remain untouched. Unless if you want to hammer your brains in and then rearrange it to have a different perspective on what this and that is, it's still a joyful experience to wonder about. Yeah, you're just trying to climb air but you learn a lot meantime just like experiencing unnecessary but life oriented things.
I was almost about to say welcome back PB when I realized this was a revived thread.
Anyway it's clear most creativity is the work of the Devil - thank God.
Enjoyed the video very much.
I have heard the genius or muse; I would equate the experience to a tangible transcendence some times. I do believe that some people are endowed with certain gifts that need to be nurtured... and "we need to show up for the work".
"Lit on fire with Divinity" works very well within my sensibilities.
Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY
I wholly agree with Picasso:
http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/...psfn62qpzb.png
Ah, yes: http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/06...as-creativity/
Evidently Picasso had quite a few thoughts on creativity.
Ta ! (short for tarradiddle),
tailor STATELY
While I do believe that a divinity exists, my conception of it is that it works through pre-existing laws, effecting change with the minimum of effort. Large scale miracles are unnecessary when you can cause a hurricane in China by having a butterfly flap it's wings in Mexico, or slightly alter the probability of a minor event like the toss of a coin which has a ripple effect a century later. So if God did want to inspire someone, he'd probably pick a genius who already had a predilection in that direction. I don't rule out miracles or dramatic intervention entirely, just because it's a weird universe and I don't know everything, but I suspect that if there are divine forces at work they are very subtle and intelligent actors. I once missed getting hit by a bus by a fraction of a second because I noticed my shoe was untied and I stopped to tie it. I suspect that an intelligent actor would use the absolute minimum effort to effect the greatest result. I've heard people criticize God for not performing constant miracles, so that people would never doubt his existence, but it seems like a pretty smart move in retrospect that he could just appear to half a dozen great communicators (Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad) and have 80% of the world believe in him anyway. A great message needs a great messenger, usually one who is uniquely placed in time, in space, in language, and society; so that the message spreads as far as possible.
I think God acts in a way that makes it look like he's not acting, using natural forces to precipitate a preconceived design, painting with rivers, the air, or the spinning of an electron.
It's interesting to trace out the shift from Homer to Vergil to Milton all calling upon the Muse(s) to sing; to Whitman in the latter half of the 19th century not only not calling upon anyone else to sing through him, but also singing of himself (as opposed to Achilles, Odysseus, Aeneas, and--well--Lucifer, respectively)! Admittedly, I'm reducing these points and being selective with my exemplars here--a result of the forum (www.instantrimshot.com) in which I find myself.
In the end, I, too, agree with Picasso via stlukesguild: there is a stream that we can dip into and share with the masses (or to your cheering mother, in my case), but like any undertaking, some are equipped and put in the effort to do it.
Picasso, as a Modernist, was challenging the old Romantic-era notions of inspiration in which the artist is deemed as some sort of visionary who sits about staring at his or her navel waiting to be inspired. Van Gogh is often cited as a prime example of the inspired visionary artist... but in reality, he literally worked his *** off producing some 800 paintings in a rather short span of time. Picasso argues that inspiration does exist... from wherever it comes... but it is far more likely to strike and to be of some worth when the artist is actively engaged in working on his or her art.
I can say from my own experience that ideas come fast and furious while I am engaged in painting as opposed to sitting about daydreaming.
can you believe van gogh lost both his ear and his ***, guy could not catch a break
elisabeth gilbert wrote eat pray love right? probably gods