There are very few things that have ever personally offended me. In fact I am often annoyed at those who will go to extreme measures to show how something may indirectly offend them or anyone else. After all, I love a good satire and I am a huge supporter of every individual’s right to free speech. In these regards I have no problem with this woman saying whatever she pleases, but I feel it is my duty to politely retort.
To me, the speech in this video is offensive.
It is offensive to reason, it is offensive to beauty, and it is offensive to the thinking, creative, human mind. This isn’t just pseudoscience it is pseudophilosophy. Does a thinking individual really have to take their creativity “on loan” from some invisible fairy? Is it too selfish to think that maybe humans can actually create beauty and art on their own and without any assistance? Ironically this woman may be too humble to admit that she did create an immensely popular book all on her own, but she is certainly not humble to pass up the opportunity to dictate to us where our creativity is externally formed and how each and every one of us should approach art. Wow!
Tom Waits is my FAVORITE!!!! FAVORITE!!!! FAVORITE!!!! musician, and this is not a title that I hand out easily. I have listened to many of his talks and interviews, and I feel like he is much better at explaining this phenomenon. Tom knows that this is all in his head…his VERY creative head, I might add…and he finds himself conjuring up brilliant ideas at the most inopportune times. Tom Waits is THE MANNNN and he does NOT need some invisible pink unicorn to prove this or assist him.
I’m very sorry if it seems like I am overreacting, but I just cannot help myself. I spend a lot of time with aesthetics and I read and study a ton of aesthetic philosophy. Philosophers in the realm of aesthetics have spend many years debunking the ridiculousness of Plato’s thoughts on artistic genius as Plato believed an artist to be only a vehicle for divine powers. Plato thought that since an artist has the power to move people without any logical basis, he must be under divine power. This can be found in his work entitled Ion. This took all credit from artists of the time and it was up to later philosophers like Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche to expose the ridiculousness of Plato’s claims. I have always been mystified at the power of art, but it belittles the art and the artist to think that we are all pawns or cogs working for a divine “artistic” dictator.
And another thing. Artists being portrayed as freaks or depressed maniacs is not a byproduct of them receiving “too much credit” or “too much responsibility” for their work. There are many other factors that have contributed to this stereotype and I will leave it to the minds of the psychologically interested students to think of other contributing factors to this correlative observation.
I have no problem with using this idea as a metaphor or a romanticized way to look at the mysterious beauty of art. I love hearing Tom Waits talk about wrestling with demons as well as angels, and I very much enjoyed the illustration that the poet presented of the train passing her and grabbing the end of the tiger of inspiration’s tail (a bit clichéd, but interesting nonetheless). It must be heard, however, that this is all the creating of art from the individual, nothing more and certainly nothing less…
2 comments:
That was great.
There are very few things that have ever personally offended me. In fact I am often annoyed at those who will go to extreme measures to show how something may indirectly offend them or anyone else. After all, I love a good satire and I am a huge supporter of every individual’s right to free speech. In these regards I have no problem with this woman saying whatever she pleases, but I feel it is my duty to politely retort.
To me, the speech in this video is offensive.
It is offensive to reason, it is offensive to beauty, and it is offensive to the thinking, creative, human mind. This isn’t just pseudoscience it is pseudophilosophy. Does a thinking individual really have to take their creativity “on loan” from some invisible fairy? Is it too selfish to think that maybe humans can actually create beauty and art on their own and without any assistance? Ironically this woman may be too humble to admit that she did create an immensely popular book all on her own, but she is certainly not humble to pass up the opportunity to dictate to us where our creativity is externally formed and how each and every one of us should approach art. Wow!
Tom Waits is my FAVORITE!!!! FAVORITE!!!! FAVORITE!!!! musician, and this is not a title that I hand out easily. I have listened to many of his talks and interviews, and I feel like he is much better at explaining this phenomenon. Tom knows that this is all in his head…his VERY creative head, I might add…and he finds himself conjuring up brilliant ideas at the most inopportune times. Tom Waits is THE MANNNN and he does NOT need some invisible pink unicorn to prove this or assist him.
I’m very sorry if it seems like I am overreacting, but I just cannot help myself. I spend a lot of time with aesthetics and I read and study a ton of aesthetic philosophy. Philosophers in the realm of aesthetics have spend many years debunking the ridiculousness of Plato’s thoughts on artistic genius as Plato believed an artist to be only a vehicle for divine powers. Plato thought that since an artist has the power to move people without any logical basis, he must be under divine power. This can be found in his work entitled Ion. This took all credit from artists of the time and it was up to later philosophers like Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche to expose the ridiculousness of Plato’s claims. I have always been mystified at the power of art, but it belittles the art and the artist to think that we are all pawns or cogs working for a divine “artistic” dictator.
And another thing. Artists being portrayed as freaks or depressed maniacs is not a byproduct of them receiving “too much credit” or “too much responsibility” for their work. There are many other factors that have contributed to this stereotype and I will leave it to the minds of the psychologically interested students to think of other contributing factors to this correlative observation.
I have no problem with using this idea as a metaphor or a romanticized way to look at the mysterious beauty of art. I love hearing Tom Waits talk about wrestling with demons as well as angels, and I very much enjoyed the illustration that the poet presented of the train passing her and grabbing the end of the tiger of inspiration’s tail (a bit clichéd, but interesting nonetheless). It must be heard, however, that this is all the creating of art from the individual, nothing more and certainly nothing less…
Post a Comment