The use of drugs in spurring genius

[RedSkunk]

What do people think about the idea of drugs being used to spark creativity? I'm talking about in any number of ways. Most of the greats that we were required to read in school, were complete alcoholics, or dope fiends. The possibility of mind-altering substances helping in the world of art is a very obvious one. Can you really understand and appreciate a Dali without having experienced the mindfuck of a psychedelic experience?

True genius is obviously a rarity. They are able to write, to paint, to think outside the scope of the regular herd. Many would say that using substances is a sort of crux. But isn't that like calling the writer's pen a crux? Or the painter's canvas?

What role do mind-altering substances have? We generally are taught to believe that "drugs are bad." But ponder it for a second. What are the legitimate uses?

[BFG-Nine-Thousand]

I dunno, that argument is a wee bit flimsly, although it's an interesting thought.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/8/06 10:07 PM, BFG_9000 wrote: I dunno, that argument is a wee bit flimsly, although it's an interesting thought.

I didn't really develop an argument at all, I'm relying on people to create an intelligent line of debate on their own. Yes, I'm setting myself up for failure.

[BFG-Nine-Thousand]

I mean, not argument. D'oh.

Ah well. Seems like a strange way to inspire creativity.

[IllustriousPotentate]

In my opinion, if you are already doing drugs, then by all means , use the experiences and hallucinations in artwork. But art shouldn't require drugs, nor should anyone take up drugs just to use the hallucinations and experiences in art.

I wouldn't call substances a crux for art, either. The use of substances, or the results from the use of said substances may be a tenet of forms of art, but not art in general.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/8/06 10:13 PM, BFG_9000 wrote: Ah well. Seems like a strange way to inspire creativity.

Why?

[Elfer]

Shrooms are actually the most probable cause for a lot of the types of things we now call "art"

[BFG-Nine-Thousand]

I dunno, it just doesn't seem like a good way to inspire people. Think of the infomercials it could spawn.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/8/06 10:15 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

Yeah, basically. That sucks, you just ended the thread.

But woops. I used crux incorrectly. Meant crutch. Heh. heh..

>.>

[Dash-Underscore-Dash]

Paint Shmaint.

[Montgomery-Scott]

There are several views on this. The dirty self-indulgent hippy view, that yeah lets use drugs. Then the zen buhdist/on-their-high-horse self-rightcous trancendentialist view, that innovation ccan only come from within, not wthout.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 2/8/06 10:19 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 2/8/06 10:15 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

Yeah, basically. That sucks, you just ended the thread.

Whoops.

But woops. I used crux incorrectly. Meant crutch. Heh. heh..

Well, even still, it's doesn't really fit the argument that one could posit that you described.

Yes, substances are a crutch. A truly talented artist would have the imagination to produce his works of art in a clear mind, or at least, a mind free from substances. Lesser artists could use substances, then, as "artificial imagination" to make up for their shortcomings in that department.

However, one can't say that pencils and canvases are crutches; they're requisites--they're the media. No artist, regardless of their talent, can create drawings or paint paintings without something to draw with or paint on. They can't be crutches, because everyone has to have them.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/8/06 10:33 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Yes, substances are a crutch. A truly talented artist would have the imagination to produce his works of art in a clear mind, or at least, a mind free from substances. Lesser artists could use substances, then, as "artificial imagination" to make up for their shortcomings in that department.

See, that's the thing that I'm trying to address. What makes you think that it is making up for shortcomings? There is a leap of faith there that I don't buy. Van Gogh was an alcoholic and abused absinthe, it was a factor in his art. Are you saying that he was using it to make up for a shortcoming in his creativity?

[Ravariel]

At 2/8/06 10:54 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 2/8/06 10:33 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Yes, substances are a crutch. A truly talented artist would have the imagination to produce his works of art in a clear mind, or at least, a mind free from substances. Lesser artists could use substances, then, as "artificial imagination" to make up for their shortcomings in that department.

See, that's the thing that I'm trying to address. What makes you think that it is making up for shortcomings? There is a leap of faith there that I don't buy. Van Gogh was an alcoholic and abused absinthe, it was a factor in his art. Are you saying that he was using it to make up for a shortcoming in his creativity?

Yes.

Does this make him less of a genius? No, I don't think so. Van Gogh was an incredible technician. He could paint as realistically as Renoir, and it wasn't until later that he developed his "style" that made him legendary (mostly posthumously). If he used alcohol/drugs to shift his peception in such a way that he could come up with this new style, whose to say that it's not just another tool?

I use SIbelius to write music. It makes up for the distinct creative shortcoming that I am not a very good piano player, and my mind is not wired well for remembering long strings of notes. Does that, in and of itself, make the music I write somehow artistically LESS relavent? Or is it the final product that is the only true way to guage the impact of a work?

I think many artists, who are excellent technicians, but lousy creativists, DO use substances to give them that creative catalyst that can spawn a great work of art. I don't believe that this is always the case, and I won't even try to estimate the percentages that do and don't. But I believe it happens. I also believe that the same things that can drive a creative mind to great work can, independantly, drive them into substance use and abuse.

For me, I work best without the drugs. Others I know use them, as a painter might use removing his glasses, as simply a way to look at things in a different way... and I know those who use it as a crutch. But the end question is this: Does it really MATTER where the inspiration came from, if the work, itself, is worthy of admiration?

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 2/8/06 10:54 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 2/8/06 10:33 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Yes, substances are a crutch. A truly talented artist would have the imagination to produce his works of art in a clear mind, or at least, a mind free from substances. Lesser artists could use substances, then, as "artificial imagination" to make up for their shortcomings in that department.

See, that's the thing that I'm trying to address. What makes you think that it is making up for shortcomings? There is a leap of faith there that I don't buy. Van Gogh was an alcoholic and abused absinthe, it was a factor in his art. Are you saying that he was using it to make up for a shortcoming in his creativity?

Maybe? I don't know. But couldn't some other artist have created the same paintings with the same style without the substance?

It might not be so much used in Van Gogh's case to make up for a shortcoming in creativity as it would be to change his frame of creativity, just as if a hypercreative artist used sleep deprivation and fasting to move his frame of creativity into a more somber, less colorful mood, Van Gogh could have used substances to move his frame of creativity from somber (or whatever) to more colorful and imaginative moods. Both Van Gogh and the other artist could be equally talented, just in different aspects and styles, but by using crutches such as substances, fasting, and other mentally altering states, they can apply those talents into other styles.

Compare it to a olympic sprinter and pro baseball player, having a foot race and playing a pick up game of ball. Both are very good athletes, but in each competition, it would be a blowout if left unchanged. Give the sprinter a metal bat, and give the baseball player a head start, and you allow both to be competitive. Sure, they're still both great athletes, but they both needed handicaps--crutches--to be able to apply that talent and to get to that competitive level.

[RedSkunk]

But why do you consider using a mind-altering substance to be a "crutch"? It's simply opening the artist to new experiences, new sensations, new frameworks. That other dude made the salient point, I'm tired and drinking wine.

Whatever.

[102387412]

At 2/8/06 10:05 PM, redskvnk wrote:
What role do mind-altering substances have? We generally are taught to believe that "drugs are bad." But ponder it for a second. What are the legitimate uses?

We all have some forms of addictions and weakness, the key is to be able to control them so that they don't interfere with your short/long term goals.

The fact that many great thinkers were able to use drugs responsibly shows their willingness and control for great feats of mental exploration. Although drugs are bad, not everyone is equal and thus better people can get something out of them without being lethargic.

[DancingTurkeyGod]

At 2/8/06 11:12 PM, Ravariel wrote: I think many artists, who are excellent technicians, but lousy creativists, DO use substances to give them that creative catalyst that can spawn a great work of art.
I also believe that the same things that can drive a creative mind to great work can, independently, drive them into substance use and abuse.

I completely agree with this guy. I see drugs more as the catalyst than the actual source of inspiration.

Artists are usually more open-minded than, let's say, scientists, so are more willing to experiment with different substances. I don't necessarily think they use them (at least at the beginning) to be successful, but maybe just to relax - which could make subconscious thoughts resurface. As they go along, they become physically dependent on the drugs and, in the end, the drugs become part of them (but this is not to be confused with "defining" them).

Does it really MATTER where the inspiration came from, if the work, itself, is worthy of admiration?

I don't think we're questioning whether or not the work is worth admiring, but perhaps how much credit is due to the individual person (drug effect VS human effect).

At 2/9/06 03:26 AM, Mighty_Genghis wrote: The fact that many great thinkers were able to use drugs responsibly shows their willingness and control for great feats of mental exploration.

Hmmm....I wouldn't say they used drugs responsibly. Most of them definitely were dependent on them.

At 2/8/06 11:52 PM, redskvnk wrote: But why do you consider using a mind-altering substance to be a "crutch"?

Well, it has both positive and negative effects. It helps the artist with his creativity - like a crutch helps a person to walk - but at the same time, the artist becomes physically dependent on the drugs - just like a wounded physically relies on his crutch to move around.

I think it's the perfect comparison.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/9/06 03:26 AM, Mighty_Genghis wrote: The fact that many great thinkers were able to use drugs responsibly...

Van Gogh cut off his ear.

At 2/9/06 09:26 AM, DancingTurkeyGod wrote: Well, it has both positive and negative effects. It helps the artist with his creativity - like a crutch helps a person to walk - but at the same time, the artist becomes physically dependent on the drugs - just like a wounded physically relies on his crutch to move around.

Who becomes physically dependent? You're overgeneralizing. All drug users do not become dependent.

[DancingTurkeyGod]

At 2/9/06 10:23 AM, redskvnk wrote: Who becomes physically dependent? You're overgeneralizing. All drug users do not become dependent.

True, but we're talking about Van Gogh The Alcoholic, right? So I think "crutch" fits there...

[RedSkunk]

At 2/9/06 10:31 AM, DancingTurkeyGod wrote: True, but we're talking about Van Gogh The Alcoholic, right? So I think "crutch" fits there...

Well, we're talking about anyone. But even so, I don't believe Van Gogh used drugs as a crutch in his art. Personal life, maybe, but they are seperate things. By talking about Van Gogh as if he used a "crutch,"
essentially – as if he had somehow "cheated" – it takes away from his accomplishments.

[LazyDrunk]

Cheating is only possible in regulated sports. Art isn't a sport, so you can't cheat by putting biological substances into your body. Personal life "crutches" maybe, professional crutch? Professional enabler.

[MortifiedPenguins]

I'm kinda split on the issue.

I don't like the idea of people using a drug to produce inspiration or talent.

But then again, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds just wouldn't be the same.

[Politics]

I support the use of drugs to further a persons ability to create art or literature. The only reason preformance enhancing drugs in sports are banned is because it gives an unfair advantage over those choosing not to use them, but since artists aren't necessarily creating for competition but rather doing it because they can, those same rules don't apply. Really, if someone were to argue against using psychadelic drugs to improve art, or philosophize, then the same logic could be expanded to include saying "we shouldn't dream or experience any naturally occuring drugs or hormones within the body." The only time drug usage becomes a problem is when someone overdoes it, which isn't any more damaging than getting alcohal poisoning or even over eating time and time again.

[RedSkunk]

At 2/9/06 05:55 PM, Captn_ wrote:

w0rd.

[mrdurgan]

mind altering drugs can enhance creativity, though they usually only really help people who were geniuses to start off with.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 2/9/06 10:45 AM, redskvnk wrote:

At 2/9/06 10:31 AM, DancingTurkeyGod wrote: True, but we're talking about Van Gogh The Alcoholic, right? So I think "crutch" fits there...

Well, we're talking about anyone. But even so, I don't believe Van Gogh used drugs as a crutch in his art. Personal life, maybe, but they are seperate things. By talking about Van Gogh as if he used a "crutch,"
essentially – as if he had somehow "cheated" – it takes away from his accomplishments.

A person who has a broke leg isn't "cheating" if he uses a crutch. It just enables him to do stuff he wouldn't be able to do without it, just like with substances and artistical styles. Using a crutch doesn't make it illegitimate.

But, I agree with you on the basic premise of the argument, so I'll just concede this point, because it's really ending up as nothing more as a semantics argument surrounding the connotations of "crutch."

Shoulda quit while I was ahead. :)

[Diablo666999]

As a frequent user of drugs (cannabis) to explore the visual realm, I can say that it increases visual awareness, but it is impossible to actually actualise the new visual insights because when hallucinatory visions jump out from the image, they are of such a high cognitive level that one cannot hold the vision in the mind long enough to reproduce it. Often the extremes of perspective and sheer inventiveness and playfulness of the muse are dazzling. One can spend a lifetime pursuing a will ó`the wisp. All one is left with is fustration and a life wasted. I know because I´ve wrecked my own life in the pursuit of the intangible. Stay clear of it if you can unless you are up for developing a mental illness.

[capitaI]

At 2/8/06 10:15 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: In my opinion,

i've got to say you just about nailed it, well put.

[Kasualty]

Look up Terrence McKenna for the answer. Look for rotten.com's article on him.
www.rotten.com/library/ <-- go to bios then mad science.

xoxoxo