Van Gogh, Michael Jackson, David Foster Wallace, Amy Winehouse...do you need to suffer in order to produce memorable art?
pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @nichro 27 Oct
The way I see it is that it's not they have to be broken or suffer per se, but that they have to live and that comes as a by-product (but not the only one). To express and channel creation that approaches the divine they have to live a life of exploring both worlds: the external and the internal.
How can one borrow or channel the act of creation from God to create worlds, moments and feelings without having seen or experienced a variety of them? Without having lived?
Suffering and brokenness is just part of the depth of living that tends to produce great art.
So is happiness and wholesomeness though.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @plebpoet 29 Oct
well said
reply
110 sats \ 1 reply \ @Car 26 Oct
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
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @plebpoet 29 Oct
yes. the suffering isn't useless because it is made into an offering.
reply
100 sats \ 2 replies \ @Natalia 26 Oct
It could be more like: you want to DO it so badly, even if you are suffering.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @billytheked 26 Oct
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
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @wackster OP 26 Oct
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
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @denlillaapan 26 Oct
no, hashtag Madex.
Also, Grok tells me: Michelangelo, Rembrandt, da Vinci
reply
8 sats \ 0 replies \ @wackster OP 26 Oct
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 \ @BTC_Bellzer 26 Oct
Great art can't come from people living charmed lives.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @plebpoet 29 Oct
Artists have to have hope to make great art
Brokenness is in us innately.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @flat24 29 Oct
I couldn't say that it's something necessary, but it is true that many talented artists at some point in their lives have suffered quite a bit, and have known how to channel their emotion through their art, achieving great results.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TRUTHSEEKER20 28 Oct
well, you have to be broken in order to experience the unusual therefore to see wt others barely witness. let me tell you someting: a year ago i found my self realy depressing it was a mental state after te loss of my father after two months i loved that state of being in the shell to reflect on simple ting details people may not consider quite important and write whatever come to my mind let it be a poet or a short story and after a while when i read it honestly i felt shocked how good it was not only me but my friends as well found some of these poems good ones. so to say it all, to e broken is to feel things in a deeper level tat spark a fire that of which will ignite the inspiration you have always seek.
reply