pull down to refresh

Van Gogh, Michael Jackson, David Foster Wallace, Amy Winehouse...do you need to suffer in order to produce memorable art?
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @denlillaapan 5h
no, hashtag Madex.
Also, Grok tells me: Michelangelo, Rembrandt, da Vinci
reply
I suspect they suffered more than we know.
Grok certainly hasn't suffered.
Maybe it's easy to argue that all people suffer -- certainly hard to prove otherwise -- yet that's not really what I mean. There's a kind of artist who is clearly caught by misery. Jeff Buckley, tortured by their own success and failure at living. Maybe art only comes from bad decisions...
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Car 1h
Gosh. Have so much to say about this.
I’ll start simply with as a young artist it’s important to make whatever it is you’re doing with very little assistance. That art if successful should be on the merits of your talent as a young artist.
To answer your question directly no, but it depends on a number of different factors, scenarios, situations and whether you as an artist believe the creations you create are limiting you.
Most of the best artists that have ever lived worked on many different mediums because they did not let their own mind box their creativity in including their own suffering instead they offered it up to God. That’s the unlock. 🔓
Also important to remember suffering comes in many forms not just monetary.
reply
100 sats \ 2 replies \ @Natalia 4h
do you need to suffer in order to produce memorable art?
It could be more like: you want to DO it so badly, even if you are suffering.
reply
Agreed. An artist i know often says, only pursue the life of an artist if you cannot imagine your life any other way, since it is (most likely) a life of acute suffering.
reply
yes, that makes more sense. I wasn't happy with how I phrased it. I almost wanted to say: do you need to pursue art until you are suffering for it to become good?
reply
Great art can't come from people living charmed lives.
reply