Does Art Require Suffering?- Page 2

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 8/17/06 at 4:46pm

Wow, Jane2, brilliant comment.

Connecting the intensity and sensitivity to suffering.

I so agree.

[Jane2]

Posted: 8/17/06 at 5:14pm

Thanks Nom. I feel very strongly about what I said.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/17/06 at 10:29pm

"We feel things more intensely, and that includes the bad as well as the good. We have higher highs and lower lows."

That's called Bipolar Disorder.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 8/17/06 at 10:42pm

Not necessarily, Namo.

Sensitive and/or emotional people don't have to have mental illness.

Some famous artists have and have had manic depression, but I don't know that the percentage differs from the average population or what the percentage is.

[Jane2]

Posted: 8/17/06 at 11:00pm

"That's called Bipolar Disorder"


Perhaps some artists have bipolar disorder, I haven't taken a survey. As nom said, many non artistic folks have it. I'm happy that I don't.

[paradox_error]

Posted: 8/19/06 at 3:21am

Bipolar Disorder affects around 1% of the general population, but closer to 10% of the artistic community. I was told that by one of the world's leading Bipolar experts from the University of Queensland, and I absolutely believe him.

Makes sense...

[orion59]

Posted: 8/19/06 at 8:46am

I don't think suffering is necessary at all. What makes good art is passion and passion comes during good or bad times.
Suffering may give you something to say with your art and may have an influence on it. However, being able to be ahppy and see the beauty in life can give your art a similar voice. It's all a matter of having the passion and desire to create.

When I look at some at some of my favorite artists in painting, writing, composing, whatever the art form may be, some have suffered greatly and some seem to have suffered no more than the average person.

It's really a matter of being able to have a full range of experiences and being able to use those creatively, both the good and the bad. My own art is influenced by both and blends both.

You can, as an artist, draw emotion from suffereing and infuse it into your art the way Van Gogh or Pollock did. Likewise, you can take joy and contentment and use that. Either way the final outcome and what stands up to the test of time as great art depends more on the passion behind the creation.


http://www.danperezgallery.com

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 8/19/06 at 10:38am

Ask Mr Van Gogh

[orion59]

Posted: 8/19/06 at 11:39am

Yeah, Van Gogh suffered from depression and probably schizophrenia he was a tourtored man.
He used that in his art as did Pollock, Shiel, Kohl and many others. I don't think DeLempika suffered a great deal, yet she created beautiful deco era paintings with a great eye for strong anatomy. I don't think Botero, Picasso or Monet suffered much in their lives but, each was able to craete something new and unique in the art world.

So, it would seem that suffering isn't something that's necessary for the creative process. However, it does seem to be something that comes with the occupation in terms of not being able, usually, to make a decent living at what you love doing and not being appreciated in your own time, as most artists are not.

As far as the comments about artists feeling things more profoundly, the highs and the lows, my experience has been that artists of all types are observers of the world. As such, we see more than some people do. When you are looking at the everyday world as a possible opportunity to create something or make a statement through your art, you're bound to be more effected by the world.

I can see a homeless person, drug addict or prostitue on the street and, to me, they can inspire something. So, rather than walk by and look away, I might observe them more closely and, in doing so, see something that others may not see. By the same token, I can go out and tend to my garden and start seeing flowers and plants in a very detailed manner, notcing the colors, the curve of a petal or leaf, etc. This type of observance opens you up to seeing more and possibly feeling more.







http://www.danperezgallery.com

Updated On: 8/19/06 at 11:39 AM

[robbiej]

Posted: 8/19/06 at 2:26pm

I guess I'm just not sure what the definition of 'suffering' is. I am one who believes the human condition is varying degrees of suffering. I refuse to believe that because I'm an artist, my suffering in life is any more or less valid or intense than anyone else's. I also do not necessarily believe that my passion is any more or less than anyone else's. If it were, the art that I create would be so incredibly singular that no one could possibly understand it. But great art transcends the specifics of the artist and registers with a great many. People do not respond because it's 'pretty' or 'dark' or what have you. They respond because this piece of work somehow addresses the great passions and sufferings that we all feel.

We do not suffer more. We do not 'feel' more. We simply have been given the ability, whether through divine intervention, natural selection, upbringing or just plain luck, to translate our passions and our sufferings into something tangible that registers in others.

I guess the thing I'm trying to say is that it's quite dangerous to go down the path of quantifying passion and suffering in and amongst ourselves. It removes us from others when, in fact, our gift is to illustrate the one great unifying factor between us...sufffering.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 8/19/06 at 2:33pm

Fascinating contribution, robbiej.

And much to ponder, orion59, like closely observing homeless people and flowers and details...

[DG]

Posted: 8/19/06 at 3:50pm

That was excellent, Robbie - thanks.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 8/19/06 at 4:20pm

I thought the title was 'Does Art Require Sniffing'
I need new glasses

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 8/19/06 at 4:23pm

the answer to that one, elphie, is always yes.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 8/19/06 at 4:30pm

hehe, you have an evil and dirty mind papa, COME SIT BY ME!

[wexy]

Posted: 8/19/06 at 5:29pm

Definetely. If you're never experienced pain, how will you really know pleasure and if you've never experienced sadness,how will you really know that you're happy.

To be creative in anything, you have to have a full pallet (the paint holding thing) of emotions in my opinion. Otherwise its all bubble gum and Forrest Gumpy.

[orion59]

Posted: 8/19/06 at 5:35pm

"I refuse to believe that because I'm an artist, my suffering in life is any more or less valid or intense than anyone else's. I also do not necessarily believe that my passion is any more or less than anyone else's."

You're right but, everyone has a passion for something in life and when an artist uses that passion in a creative way, the results can be something wonderful. By the same token, you can use suffering or happiness to create.

Anybody who approaches any goal with passion, or uses their life experiences, good and bad to accomplish something, usually ends up succeeding. So, you don't have to suffer to create any form of art. What makes any art or any goal you try to reach, is having a passion for it and using that.

You can't convince me that you haven't used both the joy and sorrow in your life and your passion to perform to create something great. I know better than that. Everything you put into your performances, robbie, comes from a passion to do so and encompasses your life experiences. Otherwise, it wouldn't be as good as it is. It would be a dull cabaret act that reeks of holding back, instead of something that draws people in and makes them feel something.