7 ms·
This article deals with a romanticised and populist interpretation of creativity. Linking creativity and rejection is likely comforting to many isolated and rej
by holdenc 11y ago
This article deals with a romanticised and populist interpretation of creativity. Linking creativity and rejection is likely comforting to many isolated and rejected creatives. And while the Van Gogh archetype is a familiar one, it's important to understand that Van Gogh is the exception not the rule. Within the fine arts there are few similar examples. Picasso and Matisse were popular, social and anything but rejected or isolated (even in the beginning). Since 1945 hardly a single contemporary artist has achieved significant fame after death, with the vast majority of great contemporary artists actively engaged in dialogue with others.
- waterlesscloud 11y ago"Since 1945 hardly a single contemporary artist has achieved significant fame after death, with the vast majority of great contemporary artists actively engaged in dialogue with others." Doesn't that have a great deal more to do with the art industry than creativity itself?
- voidz 11y agoI thought so too! Well then, I suppose at least we're both creative enough to come to the same question.
- Animats 11y ago"Since 1945 hardly a single contemporary artist has achieved significant fame after death..." Elvis dead has made more money than Elvis alive. (Leading to litigation amongst the heirs.)
- coldtea 11y agoHe means artist as in "fine arts" as he explains above.
- dang 11y agoPopular artists can be solitary too. Consider Rilke.
- mpdehaan2 11y agoYep. Free time might be required, and there's danger in groupthink absolutely, but you can just ignore the noise of the group, rather than avoid the group. Be with the crowd sometime but not all the time. As there's also things to be learned from other people too. And it's great being able to be your own person and ignore that crowd. Given, I greatly prefer Van Gogh to Picasso and Matisse, it's probably just as likely his mental state were an influence of his art, not the whole loneliness thing. Drawing the conclusion the other way seems dangerous, to encourage isolation. However it's good to say it's not ok, or not one's fault. It's hard especially due to 'fake socialization' like Facetube and such, smartphones, and people's busy isolated schedules involving central air conditioning to expand a circle of people you know. It seems dangerous to say to be creative you must be lonely, it's very wrong. Yet it's also wrong to say it's wrong to be lonely, because of factors that make it a really hard thing. I think we need to suggest to other people that aren't so isolated to reach out and be friendly to more people. In the south (of the US) it used to be increasingly common for people to say hi to people they met out walking, and increasingly as people move in from other places, it's rare when someone says hi back. Then people go back into their houses and you don't see them again. The problems that cause society to be isolating are somewhat improveable, but it requires awareness of it. I think it's possible Van Gogh didn't really want to be isolated, but that was his way of justifying it and being ok with it, and that his feelings of isolation were rooted in deeper problems. We'll never know. But if you are feeling isolated or whatever, don't feel you have to be that way. It's not your fault though something you have to fight for (because everybody is caught up in doing whatever they are doing), it's everybody else's fault to a degree, and you can be creative either way.
- Retra 11y ago>you can just ignore the noise of the group, rather than avoid the group. I don't see how this is a reasonable thing to believe. If you act like this around people, they will eventually stop spending their time with you.
- mordocai 11y agoIt depends on how obvious you are about it I think. You can ignore the noise of the group (not really process it, or spend time on it) while still pretending to care about it.