steve-in-kville

That wasn't my intent. But I'm glad this thread is on the right track!

Aellyce

Not sure what the message of this post is meant to be... the first thought that came to my mind though: fame, status and that popular "success" do not hold much value for me personally. And this is not coming from some kind of sourness or envy as I have tasted both career success and recognition - these never gave me as a person much, never felt they enhanced my character or my well-being beyond some pretty basic levels. I don't even think that conventional success correlates with unique talent or skill too strongly. I doubt there are more people among the "famous and successful" that are generally satisfied with their life and consider it a personal success than among those who never appear in public recognition... perhaps the opposite actually.

sleepie

John Cassevetes.

Also disagree with "all human beings are creative".

Sorry, just not true.

Never understood why arts/creativity was an asset that people seem to need to believe is accessible to everyone. It isn't. To me it's kind of like saying "We're all chemists... we're all doctors, inside... Anyone can be a scientist".

Though I suppose that's a discussion for another thread.

SnazzyDresser

We're naming celebrity drunks? Warren Zevon!

John Cheever is a great one for getting sober and still producing great work btw. The account of his battle with alcohol late in life is very gripping, as chronicled in Blake Bailey's excellent biography.

EndGameNYC

Romanticizing the lifestyle of a person with a good heart or the best of intentions who can't get out of his own way, or who destroys his life and who eventually dies by his own hand is nothing new. If you like reading fiction, or enjoy listening to many different types of music, then it's likely that you've come across this theme more than a few times.

Creativity does not rely on a finished product, a thing, for its value. It doesn't need an audience, and it doesn't care what we think about it. It doesn't need any particular kind of training except whatever it is that we need to do in order to become successful as human beings. And not everyone is up to that particular challenge.

By definition and history, survival requires creativity. We neither predict nor control very much of what happens to us in our lives. Without creativity we would go on living an unfulfilled and unfulfilling life, or we would perish by virtue of our inability to adapt to change. It's not the strongest or the smartest who survive.

Steely

I can't seem to post.

Steely

Karl Marx's classic work on "Alienation" discusses man/woman's alienation from their own labour or, that which they have created.

I suppose it depends on how you choose to define creativity. We produce, we create.

Don't be sorry, it was just an idea he had.

Steely

I nominate Bung out of the Wizard of ID. Very creative in swindling a free beer

sleepie

Mere production does not a creative make. Many make that mistake though.

Steely

Too depressed to care.

Aellyce

Creativity does not require a product, but I think success does. Without at least some level of follow through and focused hard work, many creative and talented people become lost in the complexities of their own thought processes and become merely eccentric, socially isolated and self destructive. I think we tend to romanticize this phenomenon especially when we are not in a good place mentally and/or stuck. I certainly have... code of my youth in some ways. Speaking about writers, to bring an example, one of the favorites of my youth was Herman Hesse. I binge-read all of his books within an about 2 year period in my early 20's, some more than once or even twice. It made me feel like I found a friend or something. There is a very clear and obvious personal development if we look at his works in a chronological order but back then I actually found the later books kinda boring... because they no longer carried the haunted persona, restlessness and a form of dissociated self inherent in his earlier works. I don't feel like re-reading any of them now but remembering well, I think I could much, much more relate to the later books at this point. But he was not just a creative and expressive individual... he was able to turn himself with all of its eccentricities into a productive channel of works.

Admiring these people, for me at least, is in part about being drawn to similarities and what's familiar (real or perceived) and (like on this thread I think) incorporating the familiar negative elements into more "successful" and productive ideals or idols that we like to relate to and use as role models. I think it's also a subjective way to increase our self esteem: its not just lost talent after all.

At this point of my life, I personally tend to be more drawn to features like discipline, perseverance and responsibility than creativity or pure talent. To me, talent means nothing if it is not being used constructively and productively. Going back to the addicted celebrities and recovery, obviously it's more helpful to choose idols who make it into lasting recovery and a reasonable level of contentment in their lives.

sleepie

Each has her own definition of success... to many, selling a thing is success.

That's not my personal definition.

Integrity and making or writing something genuine is a success.

Have a friend who is an immensely talented guitarist- reads no music. Classical, flamenco... plays like lightening. Never been paid for it in his life. Right from the heart.

GnikNus

I have struggled with issue this post brings up. Since I have quit drinking, I have almost totally stopped pursuing a create endeavor that used to be the focus of my life- my "life's work."

My own personal take on creativity is that all of the important works humans have created come through people who only serve as vessels. Some people out there are ideal vessels due to certain qualities- i.e. (Sometimes painful levels of) sensitivity, openness, just generally having good "antennae" to be a sort of lightning rod or conduit. Talent is part of it (but not everything). Combine this with discipline and hard work, and willingness to lead what can be a hard and lonely existence and you get the kind of stuff we all read/watch/ listen to. Art.

In order for me personally to do what I did, alcohol was a big part. I needed to be "open" and "receptive" I order to create. In the few times I've tried in sobriety, it feels far more forced, unnatural, strained, more difficult- more influenced by an internal editor. It's also, incidentally, not as fun. Perhaps it can come with time and more work, but for the last two years- I've not done anything. For the record, I'd rather be sober than to go back to the way things were- even if creativity was more in flow then. It's been a struggle, but one I've come around to accepting.

Part of it has to do with my age, I'm sure. I'm in my 40's, and let's face it- things change. Our outlook changes. Our focus changes. Priorities change. But for me, this post brings up a very personal struggle to separate alcohol from art/creative endeavors.

To go back to the original post, I think pointing out that alcohol has been a part of the lives of artists is an important point. I think alcohol and substance abuse is far more common in arts/literature/music than it is in the general population. I realize that people of all walks of life can be alcoholics, but it's pretty common in the arts. And I think it's largely for reasons i mentioned above- drinking can help a person open themselves up to the mysterious place where the art comes from and through people. No doubt many are able to channel these things as sober as the day they were born, but I think many indulge in alcohol to "help the process along." It's a fine line, though- drink too much and you're ineffective as an artist.
Anyhow, thanks for the post, as it is timely for me personally- since this is an issue I deal with.

Steely

Thanks for enquiring about my being depressed Michaelangelo, you're all 'art.

sleepie

Well said, Gnik.

Steely

Maybe a thread on the self absorption of the the artiste wouldn't go astray either

GnikNus

That's been the second reason I've put any artistic attempts aside. As I get older, anything that even hints at self absorption or self regard is distasteful. Doing something that focuses on or solely benefits myself- I can't do it. But- that's one of the necessary attributes of the artist, unfortunately. If there is no ego, there is no art. It's a dilemma.

GnikNus

Sorry, who was this a response to?

Talkinandwalkin

How cool! While I was getting and trying to stay sober I would research famous people who had made it out the other side of addiction as motivation. If you take the time their are some really cool stories out there. Clapton and Bowie amongst a pile of others. The strength it took Clapton to not go off the deep end after his son died is mind boggling. Some really cool regular people stories as well as Sober Recovery can attest. Good Luck!

sleepie

Artists are often accused of being self indulgent, narcissistic- self important- and yet there are entire museums and bodies of work, tv shows, films, novels, libraries... imparting insights, humor, heartache and experiences that have given so, so much to so many. And that stand for time- everyone has a favorite book, a song that will always be a part of them, their life.

How dreary a world it would be without any of it, if artists were more concerned with decor than their work.