Export thread

I ran smack dab into this in another thread:

Null said:

Because heartbreak is inspirational for writing in a way that happiness never will be. Not necessarily good writing, but basically if you're happy and content, you don't need to create.

Click to expand...

And it made me curious.

What makes you want to create? What makes you creative?

Thinking back on art you've experienced, what do you think caused the artist to create the piece?

My first thought was "anger," but that's not right. I truly believe the correct word would be "passion."

Passion can be anger, it can be love. It can be the driving need to prove someone wrong (possibly yourself). It can be the desire to live until your next birthday, or an equal desire to make sure someone else does not. It is the elation of watching your team win and the heartbreak of watching a "magic" season spoiled in the playoffs.

So basically it's whenever your dopamine levels are high, I suppose.

--Patrick

I write, so basically all of my creative energy is driven to some form of written expression. Anyway.

What makes me create: emotions in general. Being depressed can make me write my thoughts in letter form (even if I never send it). Being happy may cause me to write something humorous. Being angry will have me write an angry polemical essay, decrying that which has offended me.

What makes me creative: caffeine or alcohol. I tend to better on school essays I write after having a drink or two. Words flow a lot easier when I'm under the influence of either. Thoughts I've wanted to express into a coherent idea suddenly coalesce in my head and I can write them just perfectly.

Things I'd like to create but can't: I struggle with poetry. I can't write a poem to save my life, and while I love reading poems, I even have trouble analyzing them sometimes. What I do get out of them is usually the more general or obvious themes, and I frequently fail to grasp their deeper symbolism or metaphor. I also struggle with writing fiction. I write short stories from time to time but I get very discouraged with their quality.

I think most people will blatantly say, Passion. One singular emotion doesn't elicit art.

Caprice.

I also create to understand and create to entertain. There are thousands of reasons to create!

There's a reason people say you have to suffer for your art. Maybe you can be happy WHILE you create it, but unless you've plumbed the depths at some point previously, you'll lack the breadth to reach the heights.

Again, bullshit. There's no way to measure that, and there are plenty of talented people that have created based on various subjective levels of happiness and disappointment. I think people saying that artists need to suffer to create are just plumbing some stereotypical cliche. Although, of course, there have been some fucking miserable people that have created some amazing things.

For me, creating is all about what I see compared to how everyone else sees it. It's about inspiration for me - and that can be found nearly anywhere. I derive a lot of my inspriation from music.

Especially Journey. And Kevin Bacon. (I draw better than I have ever drawn whenever I watch Tremors or Footloose...he is my muse...)

lastly, I find it really disingenuous to presume how somebody else creates, as everyone has their own muse, and everyone creates based off of different factors.

Mental addiction. If I don't write or draw, I get impatient, short-tempered. I need my fix or I start having problems/causing problems.

I might go against the grain here.

I create as an appreciation and expression of form, colour and composition, more than anything.

Maybe I'm still a novice but I don't think my work conveys a lot of emotion. It's difficult to explain.

ElJuski said:

Again, bullshit. There's no way to measure that, and there are plenty of talented people that have created based on various subjective levels of happiness and disappointment. I think people saying that artists need to suffer to create are just plumbing some stereotypical cliche. Although, of course, there have been some fucking miserable people that have created some amazing things.

Click to expand...

No way to "measure" that? What kind of stupid sophistry is that mess? You don't actually argue that ANYTHING in art is a quantifiable sum, do you?

Of course people create based on both positive and negative emotions - my point was that if you have not truly experienced negative, you have, at the very least, no baseline for comparison and no depth to your being, much less your art.

I can appreciate you've seemed to get a lot more belligerent with your assertions recently, it's just too bad all your opinions seem to be so much brain-damaged drivel.

ElJuski said:

lastly, I find it really disingenuous to presume how somebody else creates, as everyone has their own muse, and everyone creates based off of different factors.

Click to expand...

Ohhh, I see now. To you, even taking a dump is "creating," and for that particular work, the muse was a seven layer burrito. "YOU CAN'T JUDGE MY WORK."

Somehow I'm reminded of the sausage/keyboard scene from freddy got fingered.

Hey. Hey. That scene was a beautiful deconstruction on the role of art as a proxy for modern consumerism.

gas, you're a dummy, dusty ol bones

But actually, Gas being a dummy aside, there's a logical extent to where one's muse is, and obviously you don't know me or where I come from if your knee-jerk reaction is to think I think everything is art (dummy). I mean, there's a reason why there's books, movies, podcasts--fucking, like, everything--dedicated to people talking about, and trying to uncover, the guiding forces and justifications behind their work. And this ranges beyond the Serious Artists, because, shit, there are tons of people who do "art" for different purposes (commercial, entertainment, etc). A font designer doesn't need to have felt pain to do their job, which still requires artistry, aesthetics, and creativity.

There's no singular answer to what drives creativity, and to sum it up in a handful of internet posts is masturbatory at best. It's a fun thought excersize, but I think people simplify the scope way too much. And, I guess this is a personal thing, but I get resentful when people try to box in what "my" own motivations to create are all about. As it stands, most of you who haven't said, "what defines me, personally" in this thread have been way off. The closest I think that comes to simple grouping of what drives so many different people is passion, as it allows for a variety of backgrounds, perspectives, and guiding motions. Yet it still doesn't encapsulate the singular individual motivations separate people can tap into to make something.

Um, which is why I guess the thread is in the subjective YOU.

I think Gas is trying to make a distinction between something that's created with some relevance and significance to the outside observer and something that someone shits into a toilet and calls a masterpiece. Let's face facts. Not everything created is necessarily good.

How any of that really has anything to do with the thread topic at hand, well...


No, you don't have to hit rock bottom to be a creative person, or need to hit the "highs" to gain enough insight to make something good. Gas, Juski's right on the money. I'd like to add that creativity takes many, many forms and spans many different archetypes of careers and personalities. But I don't think you're a very out of the box type of thinker (and that's fine), so you wouldn't consider those positions.

Fuck, you could be a janitor and find a creative solution to how to take out the trash...

Of course not but those driven to create great works and those driven to create for the sake of creating both fit into this thread.
I'm not going to pretend that all the pose sketches I drew for February and August were fucking masterpieces but something compelled me to create them, and that's how I answered.
The fact that emotion doesn't play as major a role in my art as it does with other people is kind of disconcerting though...
Added at: 21:24
Plus art is an alchemical process. Creating something is only half the process; it takes an observer to resonate, and different things resonate with different people. Not everything created is necessarily good, correct, but someone will appreciate it regardless.

No, pretty sure it's the dopamine.

--Patrick

While there may be specific impulses behind a particular work, generally people who create - who paint, who draw, who write, and so on - do it, because they can't *not* do it. Most of it won't turn into an actual piece, most won't have the core that can be made into something worth sharing. But the story, the picture, the song, the idea won't leave you alone until you exorcise it in some fashion.

At least, that's been my experience.

Now, mind you, the art of doing something isn't necessarily the same thing as the craft or skill of doing something, though they can be complementary. I know that Kristen (who does the covers for most 4WFG books) is a professional graphics artist, but while some of the skills are the same, when she does a piece for herself, it's not the same as what she does for her day job. Likewise, when I write a poem or a piece of fiction, it's not the same as writing an essay.

People ask my what I got out of doing my sketch videos sometimes. And honestly?

I did it all for the nookie.

mr_thehun said:

yeeeeeah that's what I'm talking about.

Click to expand...

<3

I'll leave a srs response later though. I like reading people's thoughts on the subject.

Mathias said:

Fuck, you could be a janitor and find a creative solution to how to take out the trash...

Click to expand...

Heh, that sounds pretty much like suffering to me..

ElJuski said:

But actually, Gas being a dummy aside, there's a logical extent to where one's muse is, and obviously you don't know me or where I come from if your knee-jerk reaction is to think I think everything is art (dummy). I mean, there's a reason why there's books, movies, podcasts--fucking, like, everything--dedicated to people talking about, and trying to uncover, the guiding forces and justifications behind their work. And this ranges beyond the Serious Artists, because, shit, there are tons of people who do "art" for different purposes (commercial, entertainment, etc). A font designer doesn't need to have felt pain to do their job, which still requires artistry, aesthetics, and creativity.

There's no singular answer to what drives creativity, and to sum it up in a handful of internet posts is masturbatory at best. It's a fun thought excersize, but I think people simplify the scope way too much. And, I guess this is a personal thing, but I get resentful when people try to box in what "my" own motivations to create are all about. As it stands, most of you who haven't said, "what defines me, personally" in this thread have been way off. The closest I think that comes to simple grouping of what drives so many different people is passion, as it allows for a variety of backgrounds, perspectives, and guiding motions. Yet it still doesn't encapsulate the singular individual motivations separate people can tap into to make something.

Um, which is why I guess the thread is in the subjective YOU.

Click to expand...

You went from "I don't think everything is art" to "even making a font is art" in one paragraph.

Maybe you thought my initial post was a direct reply to yours, but it wasn't. I made a statement that wasn't about creation in general, it was about the quality of creation, and you called it bullshit. I'm not the one making the assertion that anybody can create something, you're the one making the assertion the vacuous can be Picasso.

...

Now we just need JCM back and we can have that argument all over again about how he claimed, and defended for 20 pages (TWENTY!), that Yu-Gi-Oh was better art than Michelangelo's David, and we'll almost be back to the good old days again.

GasBandit said:

Now we just need JCM back and we can have that argument all over again about how he claimed, and defended for 20 pages (TWENTY!), that Yu-Gi-Oh was better art than Michelangelo's David, and we'll almost be back to the good old days again.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry I missed that one, could I get a summary of his defense?

drifter said:

I'm sorry I missed that one, could I get a summary of his defense?

Click to expand...

Mostly it consisted of how pedestrian Michelangelo's works were, and how intricate and developed the plot and characters of Yu-Gi-Oh were.

...

Yeah, I know, man. I know. I think he was high.

drifter said:

I'm sorry I missed that one, could I get a summary of his defense?

Click to expand...

No.

But if you want the clearest difference between a discontent artist and a complacent artist in the quality of their work, look at George Lucas. When he was an essentially unproven film school graduate with a moderate hit under his belt (American Graffiti) , he was looking to recreate the old serials like Flash Gordon and advancing them to impress a modern audience. Lucas then made Star Wars, a trilogy which remains enjoyable 30 years later. There was a lot of compromise and other people made modifications to his work, but the energy and verve and passion were all there. The same goes for Indiana Jones - a pure adventure serial that is as awesome as it is ridiculous.

Now, take the same guy, wealthy, successful, stable, and needing to compromise with no one. And what does he produce? The Phantom Menace. Attack of the Clones. Revenge of the Sith. Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull. That is what being content does to an artist.

That would be a good example of the "stay hungry" comment that you always hear from coaches, etc.

So TWO things, then. Passion and pressure. Without passion, there is no fire, no Muse. Without pressure, there is no output (no incentive/deadline/urgency/reason for now, Now, NOW).

The components of creation are starting to sound more like the mental aftermath of too many chili cheese jalapeño poppers...Fiery and Urgent.

--Patrick

Diamonds are formed through huge amounts of heat and pressure.

Pearls are formed through extended periods of CONSTANT IRRITATION!!!


...

Ok, credit where it's due... I ripped that last one off from an old Garfield comic from 1986.

Motion to change this forum's name to "The Pearl Farm"

PatrThom said:

Passion and pressure. Without passion, there is no fire, no Muse. Without pressure, there is no output.

Click to expand...

This. I couldn't agree with this more.

Wait, we are talking about oral sex, right?

Fun Size said:

This. I couldn't agree with this more.

Wait, we are talking about oral sex, right?

Click to expand...

That too is an art.

Because I need to. If I don't start putting down the words in my head, write out the stories swirling around, I'll go mad.

Null said:

look at George Lucas.

Click to expand...

I don't know if George is the best example for this. Since his best work was done under the guidance of others, and the crappy stuff came out when he had full creative control, it could have absolutely nothing to do with "tortured artist" and everything to do with George actually being a complete hack, and without the help of people like Irvin Kershner he really is just a mediocre writer/director who got extremely lucky in having talented mentors.

Anyway, my creativity has to come from a happy place. I create when something interests me and is going to be fun to do. At the first hint of discontent, my Muses pack their bags and head to Tahiti.

ThatNickGuy said:

Because I need to. If I don't start putting down the words in my head, write out the stories swirling around, I'll go mad.

Click to expand...

Yeah, something like this. Sometimes I just have to make something, or it just drives me nuts.

There's going to be quite a bit of subjectectivity involved in any discussion about what constitutes art, and what constitutes simple creation.

I'd say all dramatic art comes from pain because you can't have drama without conflict and conflict inevitably leads to pain.

However, there are many works of art, music, movies and books that aren't born from any sort of pain, but are celebrations of life and happiness.

I refuse to buy that only melodrama is considered art.

Bowielee said:

There's going to be quite a bit of subjectectivity involved in any discussion about what constitutes art, and what constitutes simple creation.

I'd say all dramatic art comes from pain because you can't have drama without conflict and conflict inevitably leads to pain.

However, there are many works of art, music, movies and books that aren't born from any sort of pain, but are celebrations of life and happiness.

I refuse to buy that only melodrama is considered art.

Click to expand...

No, it's not.

GasBandit said:

No, it's not.

Click to expand...

Elaborate, please?

Bowielee said:

Elaborate, please?

Click to expand...

Melodrama is not the only form of art. It was never my argument that it was.

I didn't at first get what you were replying to.

To me, whenever I hear that all art comes from suffering all I think is...

Bowielee said:

I didn't at first get what you were replying to.


To me, whenever I hear that all art comes from suffering all I think is... Emo.

Click to expand...

I think the fundamental disconnect here is two fold - you were talking about what constitutes art, I was talking about what makes for good art. Also, I didn't say all art has to BE angst, just that even "happy" art suffers if the artist has never felt anything worse than the proverbial "first world problem," as it makes even an expression of joy shallower, because he has no frame of reference.

All art does not come from suffering, but without experiencing suffering or struggle, an artist usually will lack the depth of character prerequisite to be a true artisan of joy.

The video you posted also shows that it runs the other way as well... even sad "art" is shallow when it's a bunch of suburbanites who've never had to actually suffer making it. And to attempt to fake it by pantomiming suffering leaves the listener feeling somewhat patronized, if not outright insulted.

Also, seat belts and air bags, kids.

GasBandit said:

art suffers if the artist has never felt...

Click to expand...

I've always wondered about this assertion. One is basically arguing that children cannot create great art with depth due to lack of "life experience" and further this assertion encourages people to search out why an artist was able to create a great piece of art. See a great piece of art --> assume artist lost someone close to them, had a rough childhood, etc.

I would ask you to back up your assertion, but there's no way to prove or disprove it since art is ultimately subjective. You are welcome to try, of course, but I'm only here for the discussion and the nachos, so likely won't put up a spirited defense.

However, those two issues make me skeptical about the assertion that "without experiencing suffering or struggle, an artist usually will lack the depth of character prerequisite to be a true artisan of joy."

stienman said:

I've always wondered about this assertion. One is basically arguing that children cannot create great art with depth due to lack of "life experience" and further this assertion encourages people to search out why an artist was able to create a great piece of art. See a great piece of art --> assume artist lost someone close to them, had a rough childhood, etc.

I would ask you to back up your assertion, but there's no way to prove or disprove it since art is ultimately subjective. You are welcome to try, of course, but I'm only here for the discussion and the nachos, so likely won't put up a spirited defense.

However, those two issues make me skeptical about the assertion that "without experiencing suffering or struggle, an artist usually will lack the depth of character prerequisite to be a true artisan of joy."

Click to expand...

The art of children is not so deep as what we ascribe to it. So much of how we behave toward children is evolutionary programming. As a counterpoint, how many times have you heard, "What is this? A 4 year old could do this 'art.'"

GasBandit said:

The art of children is not so deep as what we ascribe to it.

Click to expand...

Again, this means we should only approach art with the knowledge of the artist. I'm thinking art should stand, or fall, on its own.

In other words, are you saying that in blind A-B testing, a person should be able to tell the difference between an artist who has suffered and/or experienced life and someone who has not, based solely on the art presented?

I suspect that if we took the same set of paintings, gave them two bios - one with an artist that has suffered great strife and come through it a better person, the other a newly-minted art school graduate with no difficulties, and displayed them to audiences in various parts of the art world, people would ascribe things to the art that aren't actually there.

stienman said:

In other words, are you saying that in blind A-B testing, a person should be able to tell the difference between an artist who has suffered and/or experienced life and someone who has not, based solely on the art presented?

Click to expand...

Such would not be ironclad, as as you allude, a lot of art's "value" is subjective and in the eye of the beholder, and even that notwithstanding, even blind pigs find corn occasionally. Moreover, the thing about using "a person" to judge things is you run a high risk of running into people who think Twilight is the height of cinema (so no wonder they wrote a book from it! /headdesk, /headdesk). But really, if you were to take a skid mark from some tighty-whiteys and tell people "find meaning in this," they'll be able to. After all, a lot of people bought tickets.

Which brings us around to who is allowed to judge what is art and what isn't.

And for the record, the correct answer to "find meaning in this skid mark" is "You need better hygiene skills."

I wonder what inspires porn directors...

stienman said:

Which brings us around to who is allowed to judge what is art and what isn't.

Click to expand...

The art argument always comes around to it's ineffability, and yet, I'm 99% certain we can all agree that Michelangelo's David holds more artistic merit than Yu-Gi-Oh.

/GLARES AROUND.

Always depends on the audience, Gas.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

Always depends on the audience, Gas.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

I really love the contrasting of colors, the use of warm tones in the center of the cloud really work to evoke the feelings of rage and anger that went into the work, while it's stark contrast with the cold and desolate devastation around it, clearly shows the artist's own isolation and struggle to find meaning and beauty in world around them.

And in the other corner:

It's like the heavens taking a massive chili shit. Looks like some serious bhut jolokia action there.