tortured soul?

peterm1 said:
I think that creative people often have to look deep inside themselves for inspiration. A process which itself can be tortuous.
Click to expand...

This is so far removed from my own experience of being creative that it sounds completely alien to me. I never look anywhere for inspiration - inspiration appears out of nowhere. The 'being creative' bit comes when you take that inspiration and do something with it.

The whole notion that artists must somehow be starving or troubled, or otherwise living tortuous lives, is frankly ridiculous. I've have my bad times in life, and I've had my good times. I've never been in a state that I could half-way describe as starving. None of this has ever been a factor in the creative process - when you're engaging in that, what's in your head is the thing you're creating (or watching yourself create it), not the psychological impingements of some tortuous existence, or the rumblings of an underfed belly.

When you are creating, you are in the zone, and you are aware of nothing but the creative process and the tangible result of that process.

Torture schmorture!
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
What you said was not humorous. It was meanspirited and callous. Artist is a job for those who do it professionally.
Click to expand...

There are many mean and callous words but well-fed is not one of them.

Anyway, people can call themselves anything they want... After all the biggest problem with our time is that people simply don't care, and if one thinks about that its a very tragic fact.
 
Nomad Z said:
This is so far removed from my own experience of being creative that it sounds completely alien to me. I never look anywhere for inspiration - inspiration appears out of nowhere. The 'being creative' bit comes when you take that inspiration and do something with it.

The whole notion that artists must somehow be starving or troubled, or otherwise living tortuous lives, is frankly ridiculous. I've have my bad times in life, and I've had my good times. I've never been in a state that I could half-way describe as starving. None of this has ever been a factor in the creative process - when you're engaging in that, what's in your head is the thing you're creating (or watching yourself create it), not the psychological impingements of some tortuous existence, or the rumblings of an underfed belly.

When you are creating, you are in the zone, and you are aware of nothing but the creative process and the tangible result of that process.

Torture schmorture!
Click to expand...

Do you earn a living from your art?

Because most of the professional artists I know do, in fact, experience self doubt (though they may conceal it well). Two I knew have killed themselves. Neither of them was starving -- in fact, one habitually drove Rolls Royces he could easily afford -- but quite a few others have had to worry more than most about keeping a roof over their heads and food on the table. Failed marriages are more common than not. Even the successful ones will often admit to their friends that their greatest fear is being found out, and being forced to work at a 'real'' job.

Sure, there are gifted amateurs, but surprisingly many have family money to cushion the expense of art (Lartigue springs to mind). Some of them even turn professional: just check the biographies of a score or two of famous photographers, and see how many were born into wealthy families who could afford to support them when they first took up photography. It's a statistically significant proportion.

I have no doubt that there are artists who do very nicely, thank you, and do not have a moment of existental dread: I suspect that Alma-Tadema, at least in his later years, was like that. But I also suspect that anyone who could write what you have written can hardly be acquainted with many other artists in any field.

And, let's face it, being an 'artist' when you have a steady, reliable income from something else makes the claim near meaningless. I'm not saying you are in that category -- I have no way of telling -- but many who claim to be Artists, with a capital A but without earning a living from it, remind me of "dem lady potters wit' dangly earrings dat make coffee mugs what you need two hands to lift."

A few of the artists I know can earn a living from it; a few teach (but I've met many more 'art teachers' who aren't artists than who are); some live on the dole (I have known several in that category); some clearly differentiate 'commercial' work (that pays) from 'art' (that doesn't); and some take part-time sh1t-work to fund their habit (cinema usherette, anyone?). Go to Arles, and you'll meet some real artists. And quite a few of them won't recognize a word you've written.

Cheers,

R.
 
suffering artists

suffering artists

great question and enlightening comments.

my opinion is the summation of these two from above:

SciAggie: "How about art being a means of expression for an already suffering soul?"

sevo: "Artists have much better opportunities to publish their suffering than car mechanics or shop assistants - but that does not imply that the latter suffer any less."
 
daveleo said:
great question and enlightening comments.

my opinion is the summation of these two from above:

SciAggie: "How about art being a means of expression for an already suffering soul?"

sevo: "Artists have much better opportunities to publish their suffering than car mechanics or shop assistants - but that does not imply that the latter suffer any less."
Click to expand...

I like this a lot. Everyone suffers to some extent at some point in their lives. One of the great things about art is that it can transform the suffering of the artist into something else (usually far more positive...) I can't think of many other pursuits that I can say that about.
 
I made a conscious decision about 30 years ago that I would not compromise my art for the sake of money. With an engineering apprenticeship behind me, and an ability to learn new skills if need be (I've changed career three times), I have better options for making a living (and funding my artistic interests) than starving in a garrett and busking for spare change.

During a long period of no employment, UK dole money was always enough to ensure I didn't starve, although keeping a roof over my head was sometimes difficult.

I see no neccessary correlation between creating art and the need, desire, or intent to make money from it. There are indeed troubled people who are artists, and there are artists who are troubled people, but there are also troubled people who are not artists, just as there are artists who are not troubled.
 
Nomad Z said:
I made a conscious decision about 30 years ago that I would not compromise my art for the sake of money. With an engineering apprenticeship behind me, and an ability to learn new skills if need be (I've changed career three times), I have better options for making a living (and funding my artistic interests) than starving in a garrett and busking for spare change.

During a long period of no employment, UK dole money was always enough to ensure I didn't starve, although keeping a roof over my head was sometimes difficult.

I see no neccessary correlation between creating art and the need, desire, or intent to make money from it. There are indeed troubled people who are artists, and there are artists who are troubled people, but there are also troubled people who are not artists, just as there are artists who are not troubled.
Click to expand...

If art all you can contemplate doing without going crazy (or crazier), then the correlation is very high indeed.

I completely agree that there is no need to lead a tortured life in order to create art. I would however suggest that anyone who completely dismisses the role of self-doubt, etc., has never encountered many artists. Many of the artists I know would argue that you have already compromised your art by earning a living elsewhere.

I'm not saying they're right. I'm just saying that I'm hearing an odd lack of empathy (with other artists) and experience (of knowing other artists) in your responses.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
If art all you can contemplate doing without going crazy (or crazier), then the correlation is very high indeed.

I completely agree that there is no need to lead a tortured life in order to create art. I would however suggest that anyone who completely dismisses the role of self-doubt, etc., has never encountered many artists.
Click to expand...

What on earth does self doubt have to do with art? I said earlier that the music I write is written because I like it. If I come up with a sequence of notes (or whatever) that I don't like, it doesn't get anywhere. The stuff that gets developed is the stuff I like - if the development goes well and I continue to like it, then I get a result. If the development doesn't go well, then it gets dropped, perhaps to be revisited another time, when my head is in a different place and conducive to a fresh inspiration.

Dropping a tune that I initially thought could be a goodie gives me no trouble whatsoever. There is nothing to doubt - in my mind, at any rate. Maybe this self doubt thing is about what's in other people's minds - will one's art be accepted, recognised as 'good', sell?

There have been times when, say, I've been playing guitar and someone has asked me to play a tune in a different way. Almost without exception, it doesn't work - the feel is lost and the soul goes out of it. The only way to make art is to make it for yourself. As far as my art is concerned, the only opinion that matters is mine. If others happen to like it, great. If they don't, then it's hardly my loss, is it?




Many of the artists I know would argue that you have already compromised your art by earning a living elsewhere.
Click to expand...

And I would strongly disagree with them. They made their choice, and I made mine. Creating art isn't the only thing going on in this world.




I'm not saying they're right. I'm just saying that I'm hearing an odd lack of empathy (with other artists) and experience (of knowing other artists) in your responses.
Click to expand...

Why should I have any empathy with other artists? I don't do art for the sake of feeling that I'm a member of a particular group, or that "we artists must pull together", or anything of the sort. I do, and have, known other artists, of course. Some were friends who happened to be artists, and some became known to me because they were also musicians (often a collaborative art form, so musos do tend to get together). Some were stable, sane, and happy, and some were obsessive schizophrenics. I don't recall their state of mind being neccessarily linked to the 'quality' of their art - any such notion that it was is a fallacy, since the supposed 'quality' of their art was predicated on my subjective assessment of it, regardless of where their heads were at or how they lived their lives.

And there's the rub - whether a piece of art is 'good' or not is completely subjective. You cant tell someone to be moved by a piece of art - they simply are or they aren't. Since there is no objective standard to reach, there seems little point in trying to reach the standard of somebody else, or an abstract general standard that appeals to the public. Anyone who is trying to reach someone else's standard, whether for acceptance or to get money, rather than saying "to hell with the lot of them" and doing only their own thing, is compromising. For those that have no alternative sellable skills, I can certainly sympathise, but I can't empathise because I do have alternative skills. Same for those that think being an artist is something that they must live, sleep, eat and breath - if that approach affects their happiness, then I can sympathise, but not empathise. There is more to life than being an artist.
 
Last edited:
back alley said:
do you think that one has to suffer for his 'art'?

the tales are endless of the great artists being miserable, tortured people who cannot find happiness in life but only in their art.
Click to expand...

It's true.

No obsession, no great art. And obsession does not go with happiness. At least not for very long.
 
Roger Hicks said:
I'm not saying they're right. I'm just saying that I'm hearing an odd lack of empathy (with other artists) and experience (of knowing other artists) in your responses.
Click to expand...

After looking back at the OP's original question, I do not know anything about what drives a "famous" artist - I freely concede that. If I lack any empathy it is for the same reason. It is not meant to be callous or insensitive.

The discussion about artists is still something that I feel qualified to speak about, based on my own experiences. I do know people that I would consider "Artists". I see Art as a medium for expression and those whom I consider artists in my experience often see the world differently than the rest of us. In conversation I would say they are "wired" differently. If they are driven it is because art provides a pathway of expression; a way to express their vision and be socially rewarded by being praised as "creative". Art is in a sense a way of coping in a world in which they don't always feel comfortable or accapted. (This would be my explanation for the self-doubt)

I also don't think we should dismiss the evening pottery classes for the who-evers. This may as easily be an outlet for expression for a personal void or inner suffering, although it is not necessary. As I read in some other thread, not all art is good. The bad coffee mug made by a lonely, suffering widow may still be something they are driven to do - as a means of coping.

I guess my experience leads me back to believing that it may be that it is not necessary to suffer for one's art, but rather that some art is the expression of a suffering soul.

At the end of the day, I'm just a middle-aged science teacher that likes to take pictures and doesn't know diddly about the art world - so you may dismiss all of my comments. I do appreciate the way some discussions on this forum require us to think.
 
let's not torture each other with this thread, ok?

chris, tone it down a bit, please...and gsn...i have no idea what to say to you...
 
"A great artist... must be shaken by the naked truths that will not be comforted. This divine discontent, this disequilibrium, this state of inner tension is the source of artistic energy". Goethe
 
i would think that loving to photograph the world around you and more often than not...being dissatisfied with the results...is torture enough...

it is for me anyway.
 
Lots to think about in this thread, but I'll simply address the OP. I don't think that you necessarily HAVE to suffer, but many artists definitely are tortured souls.

This question came up often when I was in college ( as an art major ). I always thought back to my own personal experience. I always seemed to be able to create the best art when I was feeling great and everything seemed to be going well in my life. The art I created when I was not in such a positive state may have been just as good, but it certainly wasn't any better, and I don't recall feeling any better creating it then when I was actually enjoying my life.

So, I think that suffering is definitely NOT a prerequisite to creating art of any type, but you can most definitely create great art when you are suffering. I think that it just depends upon the individual.

My two cents worth...
 
And completely off-topic, but I always wanted to ask Joe:

Is that is a photo of you and your dog in your avatar ( and if so, when was it taken? ). Whoever it is strikes a dapper pose in a set of really cool clothes...
 
perhaps 'tortured' is not the word?

i know that to produce my best work i need to care deeply about the people i photograph. be it 20 mins from home or on another continent. caring deeply about subject matter (excluding all the other emotional hurtles like rejection letters, gallery openings etc.) involves effecting the heart and mind in one way or the other. at least that is my experience.

if i don't feel the range of emotions the people i photograph experience then i am not working hard enough/close enough.

tortured? no
effected? yes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top