This week’s reading and class discussions really got me thinking outside the box; in particular, I really thought about Darren Brown’s field of NLP (Neuro-linguistic programming). Therefore, I went to work and looked him up on Wikipedia. I found that NLP is comprised of tricks to misdirecting the audiences to get a response, which Darren wishes them to provide by the use of subliminal cues. I understood that aspect since this was something we had seen and discussed in class on Monday. However, I wanted to investigate these notions in art, books, and media and how it serves our society. I wanted to figure some of the underlying meaning or messages. This also gave me an idea for my next paper.
I further investigated NLP (Neuro-linguistic programming) in order to understand Hughes. I fell upon a PDF file by JP Mictchell the first author of a publication titled Directed remembering:Subliminal cues alter nonconscious memory strategies. The title could explain what he experimented with and how it relates to the class discussion.
I have attached his speculations below:
“We speculated that recognition performance in a standard item-based forgetting paradigm may be moderated by subliminal cues that trigger the automatic activation of different mnemonic strategies. We report the results of two experiments that supported this prediction. In each experiment, the basic item-based forgetting effect was replicated, but via the subliminal presentation of ‘‘remember’’ and ‘‘forget’’ cues. In addition, cue-dependent differences in memory performance were traced to the operation of a covert rehearsal mechanism during encoding. We consider the implications of these findings for the nonconscious operation of memory processes in everyday life.”
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~scanlab/papers/2002_unintentionalMemory_Memory.pdf
I really thought about this concept and how it connected with Hughes. I assume that Hughes was giving us subliminal cues as well throughout the book by using art and the artist, poet and the poetary and so on.
But somehow he has achieved his point about the whole notion of power being tied to everything whether it is used as a “nocebo or placebo.” He ties Disease and creativity as placebo effect to various artists and art forms. He states that the artists are abnormal not only in their personalities but also the way they are seen by society.(177) He discusses famous artist like Frida Kahlo and how her congenital spina bifida made her physically and mentally suffer and she used art as placebo to get a relief from her suffering. In a way, she took power over her physical disability and used it as a means to put her name forth in the society; yet, she left subliminal cues in her art to covey her difficult and tragic life, and her relationship with Diego Rivera, her husband. I have also attached a complete biography of Frida Kahlo to futher explain my point.
http://www.fridakahlofans.com/biocomplete.html
Furthermore, I think huges uses the nacebo effect in chapter 10 Sex and Creativity. His speculation and research findings point out that “men and women use sexuality as a means to power rather than sensual pleasure’ meaning that they use any give art form to portray aggressiveness or hostility towards one another rather than for the purpose that is intended in nature.
This made me wonder that in our society men and women use negativity to control each other in some sense. I think that Hughes in some way is pointing out that males or females both use creativity to figure out each other. We think we know one another but we really don’t and oodles of energy is put forth in taking control negatively rather than positively
For example, males use subliminal messaging in various art forms to show that females somehow are powerful. Hughes points out that Muse is a “matriarchal moon goddess… dominant… by male values of reason and logic.” (144) It made me think that men really do feel that women are dominant in some way and that could be the reason why our society use the women a mere object to degrade them in some sense whether it is through porn or adversting. If we take a closer look at the various poems, paintings, music and movies, we find that it might be true to some degree. In a similar sense, most women too believe that men are all about one thing and we all know what that is then couldn’t it be said that they too play the eroticism card to figure out the male “beast”like Picasso had made it appear in his Minotaur and Dead Mare in Front of a Cave (1936).
http://www.superstock.com/stock-photos-images/1158-1583
All of our energy and attention is devoted to figuring each other out that we really forget our purpose as humans sometimes. We too like our male or female icons distress and feel we need to empower over each other consciously or subconsciously by using the “nacebo or placebo” effects by using subliminal cues. Sometimes we forget that we are not mere objects but beings and we all possess both negative and positive aspects. I found a great blog on women rights and people had to say about sex and power and I think this helped me figure out Hughes in chapter 10.
http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/sex_is_power_-_or_is_it
I really liked this book because it really made me think outside the box. It also made me connect with myself on a deeper level and gave me an idea for my next paper.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Blog 10<
The last blog what a journey it has been. From the ancient cultures utilizing shamans to creativity itself. Chapter ten I think was the most interesting. Especially on how it explained the thought process between two genders. Its amazing how womens libido themselves are much larger than mens so they are able to control their sex drive more than males. I also was interested on how hughes described sexuality and how when it comes to it theres always a dominant and submissive partner.
It was also interesting how someone pointed out earlier in the blogs before mine of "how sexuality can be used to so concretely represent the creative process and even how it is a part of it." It ckind of sparked my interest in Hughes.
It was also interesting how someone pointed out earlier in the blogs before mine of "how sexuality can be used to so concretely represent the creative process and even how it is a part of it." It ckind of sparked my interest in Hughes.
Blog 10
Last night, I was watching an episode of Bones and the case that they were working on reminded me of the Hughes readings that we had to do this week. A little girl was dying of Mesothelioma and was confined to a hospital bed most of the time due to her dilapidated state, so she took up painting (very Matisse like indeed). This was enough of a connection to start a blog conversation about, in that the sickness that claimed her ability to go about her daily life gave her the opportunity to discover a hidden talent that she had (oh, did I mention that the art she created looked a lot like Matisse too? Coincidence, I think not…), but it went even further. The flowers she drew resembled the look and shape of the cancer cells in her bones that were destroying her life. While I understand that this is just a television show, it got me to thinking about the idea that we are subconsciously aware of our beings and dimensions on a level that our normal reality does not understand. I found this to be an interesting connection to what we have been learning and got to understand better that the our minds are more in sync with our bodies than we are consciously aware of.
Other than that when I read these few chapters in Hughes, I could not help but relate them to someone in my life who, for as long as I have known her, has been afflicted with mental illness. My mother is a manic depressive who also suffers from paranoid delusions. And what it talks about in Hughes about the connection between sickness and creativity, on certain levels, makes sense to me. My memories of my mother from childhood are a mixed bag of emotions and events that were as much of an emotional rollercoaster as her condition was to her. In the blink of an eye she could go from telling the most fantastical tales of adventure and pirates and fairies and thieves and sword-fighting with dragons to utter panic and depression. She could come up with the most intricuit details of made-up lands and people and their lives… all these things contributed greatly to my overactive imagination and total disillusionment with reality that has been a part of my life since then… but I digress. I wanted to tell this story because I see how this is plausible. Living constantly in an altered state as she did created a whole other world and understanding of life for her kids, but also ended up in her not being the most reliable or safest of parents to be left in the charge of. In the book it talks about the creative effects that Depression can have on people, and while I have seen it in numerous people, that when they are sad or down they feel the floodgates of creativity open up and some of their best works show through during this period… the point I want to say is that it is not always that glamorous. In my experience, it was always her manic times (and the bouts of paranoia) that moved her to the most creative actions. Her depression was always destructive and unproductive… usually amounting to nothing more than her staying in her room, sleeping for hours on end and eating an abundance of ice cream and watching fletch lives over and over. I digress again.
What I want to say here is that, while this book is interesting, I find it to be a bit biased towards the positive aspects of mental/physical/emotional illness. I read this and almost felt as if I was being left out and in the need of some ailment in order to improve my creativity and intrigue and that is not necessarily how it is. I see where he is coming from, and I understand that he is trying to show the different ways in which creativity presents itself, but it is by no means across the board that these illnesses or conditions can help you attain a creative status. I think that natural underlying ability still has to play a vital role in the process.
Hannah
Other than that when I read these few chapters in Hughes, I could not help but relate them to someone in my life who, for as long as I have known her, has been afflicted with mental illness. My mother is a manic depressive who also suffers from paranoid delusions. And what it talks about in Hughes about the connection between sickness and creativity, on certain levels, makes sense to me. My memories of my mother from childhood are a mixed bag of emotions and events that were as much of an emotional rollercoaster as her condition was to her. In the blink of an eye she could go from telling the most fantastical tales of adventure and pirates and fairies and thieves and sword-fighting with dragons to utter panic and depression. She could come up with the most intricuit details of made-up lands and people and their lives… all these things contributed greatly to my overactive imagination and total disillusionment with reality that has been a part of my life since then… but I digress. I wanted to tell this story because I see how this is plausible. Living constantly in an altered state as she did created a whole other world and understanding of life for her kids, but also ended up in her not being the most reliable or safest of parents to be left in the charge of. In the book it talks about the creative effects that Depression can have on people, and while I have seen it in numerous people, that when they are sad or down they feel the floodgates of creativity open up and some of their best works show through during this period… the point I want to say is that it is not always that glamorous. In my experience, it was always her manic times (and the bouts of paranoia) that moved her to the most creative actions. Her depression was always destructive and unproductive… usually amounting to nothing more than her staying in her room, sleeping for hours on end and eating an abundance of ice cream and watching fletch lives over and over. I digress again.
What I want to say here is that, while this book is interesting, I find it to be a bit biased towards the positive aspects of mental/physical/emotional illness. I read this and almost felt as if I was being left out and in the need of some ailment in order to improve my creativity and intrigue and that is not necessarily how it is. I see where he is coming from, and I understand that he is trying to show the different ways in which creativity presents itself, but it is by no means across the board that these illnesses or conditions can help you attain a creative status. I think that natural underlying ability still has to play a vital role in the process.
Hannah
blog ten
Where is the Surgeon General's warning for searching for creativity? (To answer my own question, obviously nowhere; the package is always different so where would Dr. Gupta put it?)
Essentially (what I'm attempting--and probably failing--to do is comically illustrate that), it is amazing how closely related illness and creativity really are. I was pleased to see that Hughes included the great Frida Kahlo in his assessment of mental and physical handicap and their effects on her profound and mysterious creations. It is noteworthy that Hughes includes mental incarceration or fragmentation (in depression, schizophrenia, epilepsy, and others) as well as physical limitation (paralysis, blindness, deafness, etc.) in his discussion of creativity. I'm sure many of us have heard of blind people who seem to naturally increase their senses of smell or hearing; we're used to the idea of losing something but gaining something else. But to look at it from the standpoint of analyzing or understanding an artist, the effects of a limitation or limitations on creativity are fascinating. Although it is unfortunate that these artists are afflicted by illness of some kind and must suffer, it appears that there is uniform consent that (at one time in their lives) they appreciated their lot and embraced it (as evidence by its manifestation in their created works). The part that is scary (and related to my bad joke at the beginning of my blog) is that Hughes suggests that the spirit of creativity may, itself, be a madness that, when turned inward, manifests itself in the form of illness (be it physical or mental).
Chapter ten was an enjoyable chapter for me, as I saw many interersting insights into how the sexes think, create, approach situations, etc. I think gender roles are always a fascinating topic and the idea that sex is the act that leads to the ultimate form of creation--procreation--is absolutely spot on. It also explains (possibly) why women have been oppressed for many years and why the realms of education and religion were exclusively for men. They were trying to catch up :) It is also very interesting to consider, however, that women we associate with sex or sexuality, were often times puppets of men but simultaneously controlled those men in other ways. Hughes points out this give and take idea of sexuality when he talks about aggressive possession on page 141. Basically, he cites various sources, all of whom suggest that sex is so powerful and provocative because it is a bit dangerous in the sense that someone has to sort of "win" over the other; there is a dominant partner and a submissive partner. I think it's an interesting comparison that Hughes makes when he points out the similarities between sexual relationships and creatives (and their creations). This is especially apparent in his metaphor about childbirth and the birth of a new (man-made, as opposed to man-and-woman-made) creation. Other times throughout this book I had a similar idea pop into my head, so I think Hughes relays this concept extremely well when he points out how sexuality can be used to so concretely represent the creative process and even how it is a part of it.
Essentially (what I'm attempting--and probably failing--to do is comically illustrate that), it is amazing how closely related illness and creativity really are. I was pleased to see that Hughes included the great Frida Kahlo in his assessment of mental and physical handicap and their effects on her profound and mysterious creations. It is noteworthy that Hughes includes mental incarceration or fragmentation (in depression, schizophrenia, epilepsy, and others) as well as physical limitation (paralysis, blindness, deafness, etc.) in his discussion of creativity. I'm sure many of us have heard of blind people who seem to naturally increase their senses of smell or hearing; we're used to the idea of losing something but gaining something else. But to look at it from the standpoint of analyzing or understanding an artist, the effects of a limitation or limitations on creativity are fascinating. Although it is unfortunate that these artists are afflicted by illness of some kind and must suffer, it appears that there is uniform consent that (at one time in their lives) they appreciated their lot and embraced it (as evidence by its manifestation in their created works). The part that is scary (and related to my bad joke at the beginning of my blog) is that Hughes suggests that the spirit of creativity may, itself, be a madness that, when turned inward, manifests itself in the form of illness (be it physical or mental).
Chapter ten was an enjoyable chapter for me, as I saw many interersting insights into how the sexes think, create, approach situations, etc. I think gender roles are always a fascinating topic and the idea that sex is the act that leads to the ultimate form of creation--procreation--is absolutely spot on. It also explains (possibly) why women have been oppressed for many years and why the realms of education and religion were exclusively for men. They were trying to catch up :) It is also very interesting to consider, however, that women we associate with sex or sexuality, were often times puppets of men but simultaneously controlled those men in other ways. Hughes points out this give and take idea of sexuality when he talks about aggressive possession on page 141. Basically, he cites various sources, all of whom suggest that sex is so powerful and provocative because it is a bit dangerous in the sense that someone has to sort of "win" over the other; there is a dominant partner and a submissive partner. I think it's an interesting comparison that Hughes makes when he points out the similarities between sexual relationships and creatives (and their creations). This is especially apparent in his metaphor about childbirth and the birth of a new (man-made, as opposed to man-and-woman-made) creation. Other times throughout this book I had a similar idea pop into my head, so I think Hughes relays this concept extremely well when he points out how sexuality can be used to so concretely represent the creative process and even how it is a part of it.
The picture painted by frida Kahlo with all the nails in her body waa very good description of pain. I almost felt it for her just looking at the picture.
"Sight is by far the most important of our senses". I agree with that because I have all five senses and it does seem that sight is the most important. I do not think a blind person or all blind people agree with this because they say that when you loose one sense you gain more with another sense. I also think it depends on whethter someone was born blind or born with sight and then became blind during their life.
Deafness, hearing is a sense that is something sometimes I wish I did not have, I guess I should not say that being lucky with all five senses but sometimes there are things I do not want to hear. Mostly when I am working being a bartender it is almost our job to listen and even though we do not want to hear we listen anyway.
When the chapter talked about aids and Jarmens work "blue" about the blue screen and the audience just hears music reminded me of the movie "Philidelphia". When Tom Hanks was in his studio and denzel was outside his door listening while tom just listened for about 156 minutes to this very sad Opera music as loud as he could.
Depression seems to be all over the place, every ad on TV, Depression hurts, depression effects you an everyone around you. Depression is caused by so many different things, I think it is very sad if someone does not have an outlet for depression, I do not mean medication, I mean someone to talk to or something to occupy the mind. I have a family member who has chronic fatigue, the doctor put them on so much medication, even lithium, it made them out of their mind, I mean mood swings like you would not believe. Chronic fatigue is not only depression but pain along with it. They even tried getting of the medication and seemed to be alot better.
Alcoholism I see it at work all of the time, very sad, very lonely, I feel sorry for them so like I said before wish sometimes I was deaf but some people need to be heard..."outlet"
"Sight is by far the most important of our senses". I agree with that because I have all five senses and it does seem that sight is the most important. I do not think a blind person or all blind people agree with this because they say that when you loose one sense you gain more with another sense. I also think it depends on whethter someone was born blind or born with sight and then became blind during their life.
Deafness, hearing is a sense that is something sometimes I wish I did not have, I guess I should not say that being lucky with all five senses but sometimes there are things I do not want to hear. Mostly when I am working being a bartender it is almost our job to listen and even though we do not want to hear we listen anyway.
When the chapter talked about aids and Jarmens work "blue" about the blue screen and the audience just hears music reminded me of the movie "Philidelphia". When Tom Hanks was in his studio and denzel was outside his door listening while tom just listened for about 156 minutes to this very sad Opera music as loud as he could.
Depression seems to be all over the place, every ad on TV, Depression hurts, depression effects you an everyone around you. Depression is caused by so many different things, I think it is very sad if someone does not have an outlet for depression, I do not mean medication, I mean someone to talk to or something to occupy the mind. I have a family member who has chronic fatigue, the doctor put them on so much medication, even lithium, it made them out of their mind, I mean mood swings like you would not believe. Chronic fatigue is not only depression but pain along with it. They even tried getting of the medication and seemed to be alot better.
Alcoholism I see it at work all of the time, very sad, very lonely, I feel sorry for them so like I said before wish sometimes I was deaf but some people need to be heard..."outlet"
blog 10
In chapter 9, Hughes briefly mentions that the loss of one sense can heighten others. This has always fascinated me, and then I wondered how this can relate to creativity. So, I went to the place that answers all my questions: Google (um, where else?) What I found, however, almost directly related to our class and was really quite interesting.
The New Yorker published an article called "The Mind's Eye" in July 2003. The article is about people who become blind later in life. Doctors told these patients to simply forget trying picture things in their mind because it was believed that the brain was not capable of doing such a thing when there was no real stimuli. When we are young, the brain is considered flexible and capable of doing such things, but once we develop, it becomes "inflexible." This, however, is not the case. There have been several accounts of blind people practicing holding and creating images in their minds. It is called "visual imagery" and it is like any other skill we have; it must be practiced and mastered to do it well.
The article overall was really fascinating, but the part that interested me even more was that hallucinations can accompany visual imagery. I guess that would make sense since one would be creating images in the mind, but I think it is more than just images. Now, let me say this: the article did not say anything about an altered state, but it seems to me as if this heightened awareness in the mind is actually just that: an altered state.
The article did touch on my original question. When the visual (or auditory, whichever) part of the brain is no longer being used for that particular sense, it starts using that part for the other senses, and this how another sense becomes heightened. Scientists did not believe it possible to use visual part of the brain after becoming blind. Of course, this appears to be wrong. One CAN still create images in the mind even after becoming blind...and even enter an altered state of consciousness while doing it.
The New Yorker published an article called "The Mind's Eye" in July 2003. The article is about people who become blind later in life. Doctors told these patients to simply forget trying picture things in their mind because it was believed that the brain was not capable of doing such a thing when there was no real stimuli. When we are young, the brain is considered flexible and capable of doing such things, but once we develop, it becomes "inflexible." This, however, is not the case. There have been several accounts of blind people practicing holding and creating images in their minds. It is called "visual imagery" and it is like any other skill we have; it must be practiced and mastered to do it well.
The article overall was really fascinating, but the part that interested me even more was that hallucinations can accompany visual imagery. I guess that would make sense since one would be creating images in the mind, but I think it is more than just images. Now, let me say this: the article did not say anything about an altered state, but it seems to me as if this heightened awareness in the mind is actually just that: an altered state.
The article did touch on my original question. When the visual (or auditory, whichever) part of the brain is no longer being used for that particular sense, it starts using that part for the other senses, and this how another sense becomes heightened. Scientists did not believe it possible to use visual part of the brain after becoming blind. Of course, this appears to be wrong. One CAN still create images in the mind even after becoming blind...and even enter an altered state of consciousness while doing it.
blog 10
Firstly, it was extremely pleasant to be reunited with Derren Brown on Monday. When I was in art school a few years ago, a friend of mine introduced me to him and we were mesmerized by his work. The unfortunate thing is that I had forgotten his name, and have tried on numerous occasions to find clips from this lad to show others. The minute I heard his name in class, it all came back to me. But since this blog is not about what we discussed in class, I will merely attach some of my favorite clips of him below.
As we have been reading about the relationship between creativity, hypnosis, and altered states of consciousness, I began wondering what is it that causes a reaction, or more accurately, a relationship between the viewer and the prescribed art. How are we able to feel anything at all? And why do some cherish one artwork over another? Perhaps, artists have been able to capture a form of subliminal advertising in the work itself. Maybe the concept of “needing” something (much like advertising) is crucial in the marketplace today. What constitutes art to begin with? Comedian Ricky Gervais said on his podcast that perhaps the greatest movement in the art world right now is advertising. It may not be the artwork itself, but the ability to “get away” with it may hold a deeper significant. Take for instance the English artist Damien Hirst. His piece titled, “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Seeing” is merely an enormous tank containing a shark floating in formaldehyde. It is residing in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC until 2010. Is this merely art because he was able to pull it off? Or does our subconscious actually crave a sea cadaver doused in chemicals?
Chapters 9 and 10 have been incredible to say the least. Hughes’ fills virtually every page with beautiful visual sound bytes that resonant long after putting the book down. “Eccentricity is the acceptable face of the creative. Most societies tolerate eccentrics, and even approve of them, in theory.” Perhaps the relationship between mental disturbances, the author, and the reader play a role that is not too unrelated to the German term: schadenfruede (pleasure devised from the misfortunes of others). Many psychologists argue that, for example, when we view a person surer an injury from say, falling off a ladder that we are not actually laughing at the pain the victim must suffer, but rather sheepishly out of the comfort that they are all right. I know this parallel is not completely accurate, but perhaps we are able to relate to characters and circumstances within fictional tales, most notably anti-heros and villains, because we are able to subconsciously or consciously develop a form of sympathy for them. I’ve also noticed within these chapters the differences of mental instabilities and artists/characters relationships (very similar to the chapter on drugs). For example, Hughes’ description of Kafka reads: “Franz Kafka reflected in his writings the mental difficulties and dislocations he felt himself, not only making them vividly clear as individual experiences but managing in the process to create a compelling portrait of instructional sickness.” For anyone who has read Kafka, (most notably The Metamorphosis or The Trial) it is obvious that the inner demons and paranoia that surround the characters come from a internal disturbance rather than an outward experience. It is possible that our individual subconscious thoughts may not be unlike the ones we are reading, but they have yet to surface.
The relativity of money (one of my favorites)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vz_YTNLn6w
The brilliance of cold reading
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btP_vy5cQq4
Drunk, without drinking (fantastic)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zryGzTbU49I
As we have been reading about the relationship between creativity, hypnosis, and altered states of consciousness, I began wondering what is it that causes a reaction, or more accurately, a relationship between the viewer and the prescribed art. How are we able to feel anything at all? And why do some cherish one artwork over another? Perhaps, artists have been able to capture a form of subliminal advertising in the work itself. Maybe the concept of “needing” something (much like advertising) is crucial in the marketplace today. What constitutes art to begin with? Comedian Ricky Gervais said on his podcast that perhaps the greatest movement in the art world right now is advertising. It may not be the artwork itself, but the ability to “get away” with it may hold a deeper significant. Take for instance the English artist Damien Hirst. His piece titled, “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Seeing” is merely an enormous tank containing a shark floating in formaldehyde. It is residing in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC until 2010. Is this merely art because he was able to pull it off? Or does our subconscious actually crave a sea cadaver doused in chemicals?
Chapters 9 and 10 have been incredible to say the least. Hughes’ fills virtually every page with beautiful visual sound bytes that resonant long after putting the book down. “Eccentricity is the acceptable face of the creative. Most societies tolerate eccentrics, and even approve of them, in theory.” Perhaps the relationship between mental disturbances, the author, and the reader play a role that is not too unrelated to the German term: schadenfruede (pleasure devised from the misfortunes of others). Many psychologists argue that, for example, when we view a person surer an injury from say, falling off a ladder that we are not actually laughing at the pain the victim must suffer, but rather sheepishly out of the comfort that they are all right. I know this parallel is not completely accurate, but perhaps we are able to relate to characters and circumstances within fictional tales, most notably anti-heros and villains, because we are able to subconsciously or consciously develop a form of sympathy for them. I’ve also noticed within these chapters the differences of mental instabilities and artists/characters relationships (very similar to the chapter on drugs). For example, Hughes’ description of Kafka reads: “Franz Kafka reflected in his writings the mental difficulties and dislocations he felt himself, not only making them vividly clear as individual experiences but managing in the process to create a compelling portrait of instructional sickness.” For anyone who has read Kafka, (most notably The Metamorphosis or The Trial) it is obvious that the inner demons and paranoia that surround the characters come from a internal disturbance rather than an outward experience. It is possible that our individual subconscious thoughts may not be unlike the ones we are reading, but they have yet to surface.
The relativity of money (one of my favorites)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vz_YTNLn6w
The brilliance of cold reading
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btP_vy5cQq4
Drunk, without drinking (fantastic)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zryGzTbU49I
Last Blog
Blog
Chapter 9 and 10 in Hughes
As I read there two chapters, I basically highlighted and made notes where content triggered my mind. First, I highlighted the phrase, “Creativity appears to encompass the concepts both of disease and of cure,” (117). I liked this concept, because the way I imagine it, a person get a disease and can use creativity to fight it. Creativity is catalyzed, but it is also a cure. It is a therapeutic was to fight a disease. The text refers to creatives as “abnormal” in terms of their personality and the way they are seen by society. I came up with a list of creatives that I though would illustrate the idea of standing out in society: Marilyn Manson, David Bowie, Elton John, Lady Gaga, and the late Michael Jackson.
I found the portion on pain to be rather interesting. I never thought that pain could enhance creativity. When the idea was broken down into physical and mental pain it made much more sense. The text even notes that mental pain is even more influential in the creative process.
I noticed that Aldous Huxley’s name made an appearance in the text. Apparently he had failing eyesight, which was mirrored by his interest in inner visions. We are to read some work by Huxley in class and he is also a well known novelist.
Next I would like to share my experience of visiting the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam. I traveled there in the summer of 2006 for a family vacation; the Van Gogh museum was a priority on our list. There were several levels to the exhibit. Each floor was packed full of colorful paintings, created with genius technique. The man certainly deserves a museum dedicated to his work. At the time and still I don’t know too much about Van Gogh, but the man had a mastermind.
Last week I presented during the discussion about diseases that enhance creativity. The content of this chapter further explains the surfaced I scratched. It covers many different diseases and disorders, such as manic depression, depression, and schizophrenia. I used to work with an individual, named Todd, who was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Apparently, when Todd was 18 he feel asleep with over 15 hits of LSD in his hand, which was absorbed through his skin and permanently changed his mind. Now he is a 45-year-old dishwasher at a restaurant in Exton, PA. Poor Todd would never, ever go into the walk-in refrigerator. The voice inside his head, which he referred to as “Wheels”, told him that there was a man waiting to kill him in the walk-in; therefore Todd never took his chances. Wheels also insisted that Todd not try the restaurant’s soup and eat the same sandwich everyday. It’s incredible the control the voice had over Todd. Wheels was in charge. Todd, however, was beyond creativity, I believe. He was so wrapped up in his fears that daily living was a challenge.
Chapter 9 and 10 in Hughes
As I read there two chapters, I basically highlighted and made notes where content triggered my mind. First, I highlighted the phrase, “Creativity appears to encompass the concepts both of disease and of cure,” (117). I liked this concept, because the way I imagine it, a person get a disease and can use creativity to fight it. Creativity is catalyzed, but it is also a cure. It is a therapeutic was to fight a disease. The text refers to creatives as “abnormal” in terms of their personality and the way they are seen by society. I came up with a list of creatives that I though would illustrate the idea of standing out in society: Marilyn Manson, David Bowie, Elton John, Lady Gaga, and the late Michael Jackson.
I found the portion on pain to be rather interesting. I never thought that pain could enhance creativity. When the idea was broken down into physical and mental pain it made much more sense. The text even notes that mental pain is even more influential in the creative process.
I noticed that Aldous Huxley’s name made an appearance in the text. Apparently he had failing eyesight, which was mirrored by his interest in inner visions. We are to read some work by Huxley in class and he is also a well known novelist.
Next I would like to share my experience of visiting the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam. I traveled there in the summer of 2006 for a family vacation; the Van Gogh museum was a priority on our list. There were several levels to the exhibit. Each floor was packed full of colorful paintings, created with genius technique. The man certainly deserves a museum dedicated to his work. At the time and still I don’t know too much about Van Gogh, but the man had a mastermind.
Last week I presented during the discussion about diseases that enhance creativity. The content of this chapter further explains the surfaced I scratched. It covers many different diseases and disorders, such as manic depression, depression, and schizophrenia. I used to work with an individual, named Todd, who was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Apparently, when Todd was 18 he feel asleep with over 15 hits of LSD in his hand, which was absorbed through his skin and permanently changed his mind. Now he is a 45-year-old dishwasher at a restaurant in Exton, PA. Poor Todd would never, ever go into the walk-in refrigerator. The voice inside his head, which he referred to as “Wheels”, told him that there was a man waiting to kill him in the walk-in; therefore Todd never took his chances. Wheels also insisted that Todd not try the restaurant’s soup and eat the same sandwich everyday. It’s incredible the control the voice had over Todd. Wheels was in charge. Todd, however, was beyond creativity, I believe. He was so wrapped up in his fears that daily living was a challenge.
blog 10
Yes... i totally believe that disorders can make you more creative in some areas. Whenever one part of the brain has more chemicals lets say, the other part of the brain has more chemicals in it that can lead you to be more creative. But who are we to say its a disorder? Maybe to these people with these disorders, we are the different ones. Their chemical makeup makes them perceive reality different than most of us "normal" people do. But then you think about this... in the end are any of us normal? If my point is valid, then so is this. Because nobody is absolutley the same... therefore we are all different and unique with each other. So do we all have disorders then? Nah... its just a matter of accepting the fact you have to understand people are different and have different views which makes the world beautiful.
These chapters made me wonder if there really is a reality. Because people with these disorders can come up with things that people without them can't but, people with out disorders can come up with things that people with disorders can't. I guess what it comes down to is the safety of people. When a disorder becomes out of control to the point where it can cause physical harm to a person then it is acceptable to say its unethical.
The book did bring up one thing about the quote stating how artists do their art as a form of escapism. I think that probably everyone seeks an altered state of conciousness when stressed. I know when I want to get away, I put all my focus out on the baseball field, or bang the hell out of my drums. We talked about playing sports and music as being an altered state. So I'm not too sure that Hughes quote fully is true.
I took a psychology class last year and enjoyed it. So reading about all these disorders interested me greatly.
These chapters made me wonder if there really is a reality. Because people with these disorders can come up with things that people without them can't but, people with out disorders can come up with things that people with disorders can't. I guess what it comes down to is the safety of people. When a disorder becomes out of control to the point where it can cause physical harm to a person then it is acceptable to say its unethical.
The book did bring up one thing about the quote stating how artists do their art as a form of escapism. I think that probably everyone seeks an altered state of conciousness when stressed. I know when I want to get away, I put all my focus out on the baseball field, or bang the hell out of my drums. We talked about playing sports and music as being an altered state. So I'm not too sure that Hughes quote fully is true.
I took a psychology class last year and enjoyed it. So reading about all these disorders interested me greatly.
Blog 10
So this is it.. the final blog. I found these last two chapters to be really interesting, especially chapter 9, even if it was a lot of information all rolled up into one. I never really thought that someone with a certain type of disorder could have more creative thoughts than a person who has nothing wrong with them. But people are different and some who have disorders don't really consider themselves to be creative or anything of that matter. It was interesting to read about what famously known artists, musicians, etc. had disorders because back in the day, it wasn't acceptable to talk about what was wrong with a person, people kept that kind of stuff to themselves. It seems that nowadays, people are more open to the idea of talking about ones problems and what not. However, people still don't talk about certain disorders they have because they are embarrased, which they shouldn't be because most of the time, it's nothing that they can control entirely.
The part in chapter 9 that talks about epilepsy and migraines really caught my attention. I tend to pass out a lot and have had a seizure recently, however, I am not epileptic. While reading information online about epilepsy, it was interesting to read different parts where people felt more creative and after their episodes, they were more alert to things, took extensive notes and became more interesting in certain types of philosophy. Some people talked about seeing images during their seizure episodes. For me.. when I had my first and only seizure, it was definitely different from me just normally passing out.. so I knew something else was going on. I didn't go into convulsions, which is to be considered a Grandma seizure. I was told that my eyes were open.. but I couldn't see anyone but weird images, like a dream I guess you could say.. but it was some crazy stuff, so I guess that sparked my creativity? It's really hard to explain what one feels when they pass out or have a seizure.. it's pretty intense. But I guess what I'm getting at is that I didn't really feel any more creative than what I already was before I had my seizure. Like I said.. everyone is different and I guess it affects people in certain ways. The migraine section caught my attention because my mom and one of my older sisters get migraines quite frequently. Just like Tim had written, neither of them mentioned anything about creativity. My mom and sister said that they don't focus on anything but getting away from lights. Sometimes my mom would talk about things as if she was in a dreamlike state and I thought to myself.. "what the heck is she talking about," and then realized that she was hallucinating. I guess I don't really understand how a migraine can spark creativity because migraines are highly painful and I think it would be hard to concentrate on something 'creative' that came into your mind at the time of a migraine.
Over all.. I enjoyed blogging and being able to read other people's take on the ideas that were mentioned in all of our readings.
The part in chapter 9 that talks about epilepsy and migraines really caught my attention. I tend to pass out a lot and have had a seizure recently, however, I am not epileptic. While reading information online about epilepsy, it was interesting to read different parts where people felt more creative and after their episodes, they were more alert to things, took extensive notes and became more interesting in certain types of philosophy. Some people talked about seeing images during their seizure episodes. For me.. when I had my first and only seizure, it was definitely different from me just normally passing out.. so I knew something else was going on. I didn't go into convulsions, which is to be considered a Grandma seizure. I was told that my eyes were open.. but I couldn't see anyone but weird images, like a dream I guess you could say.. but it was some crazy stuff, so I guess that sparked my creativity? It's really hard to explain what one feels when they pass out or have a seizure.. it's pretty intense. But I guess what I'm getting at is that I didn't really feel any more creative than what I already was before I had my seizure. Like I said.. everyone is different and I guess it affects people in certain ways. The migraine section caught my attention because my mom and one of my older sisters get migraines quite frequently. Just like Tim had written, neither of them mentioned anything about creativity. My mom and sister said that they don't focus on anything but getting away from lights. Sometimes my mom would talk about things as if she was in a dreamlike state and I thought to myself.. "what the heck is she talking about," and then realized that she was hallucinating. I guess I don't really understand how a migraine can spark creativity because migraines are highly painful and I think it would be hard to concentrate on something 'creative' that came into your mind at the time of a migraine.
Over all.. I enjoyed blogging and being able to read other people's take on the ideas that were mentioned in all of our readings.
The last reading kind of made me wonder what if I had some of these disorders, how would I feel, what would I be doing with my life? I did some research on Schizophrenia that I will get into during our discussion. So I will save that for later. A lot of the disorders have multiple symptoms which make them hard to diagnose. So you could be treated for something that you may not have. It made me wonder if and why some of the best writers and painters had some of these problems? Maybe this is why they were great. I wonder due to the chemical imbalances they are able to use more of their brain and thus unlock a part of the brain that is more creative than the norm. I think that it is a shame that a person may need to suffer from problems to be great. I also wonder if the great writers and painters had been treated for their disorders how different their works would have been. Maybe they wouldn’t even seek treatment for disorders in fear it might hurt their creativity. After the reading I wonder if I had any of the disorders described in the reading how different my thought process would be or will I be more creative. I wonder.
Blog 10
These two chapters in the Hughes book move away from all of our recent readings about drugs and into altered states hidden within ourselves--disease, sex, pain, etc. To be honest, I find these topics much more interesting, and much more downplayed in society (as far as inducing altered states, that is).
"Sometimes I wonder how all those who do not write, compose, or paint can manage to escape the madness, the melancholia, the panic fear, which is inherent in the human situation."--Graham Greene
Chapter 9 talks about depression being a result of repressed agression. Depression causes a feeling of emptyness inside you. You feel as though there is nothing in this world and the only thing inside you is your frozen heart. You lay in bed all day, trying to force yourself to get out and live your life--but too often, you are only going through the motions. Unless you are skilled at hiding it, people will perceive you as feeling sad or down, but you yourself cannot feel these emotions.
Have you ever been so depressed that you feel nothing? Have you ever been so out of your normal self that you begin to see things differently without any sort of chemicals in your body? Perhaps you see things in slow motion. Or maybe you see spots. Or maybe your mind is aware of your body, but your body has lost connection with your brain. Have you ever stopped thinking, just for a moment, and done something terrible? Maybe you were sitting on a sofa and your brain shut down for a few seconds. You remember everything afterwards, but in slow motion. Your brain turns back on, a few seconds later, to your body standing up, and a now empty glass of red wine on the floor. And not your glass of red wine, either.
A painter needs to paint, a writer needs to write, etc. This creative expression is almost an escape from the real world, and is an altered state itself. Not one that is induced by any sort of chemical, but one that is induced by a disease itself. I have often read about, or seen in people, a mental illness being stuck inside them. But, even if it is temporary, the touch of a paintbrush to a canvas, or a pen to a sheet of paper, seems to transfer that suffering out of their body. And you know what, there is nothing else like it. No chemical induced, hynosis induced, anything induced creativity can compare to that of a depression (or other such disease) induced creativity. I suppose altered states, at least those portrayed in these chapters, have a sort of domino affect amongst themselves. There are many things that cause the altered states like depression, schizophrenia, etc. And these diseases, in turn, are just a few of the things that induce the altered state called creativity.
I sit alone in the bathroom, crying softly
tears streaming down my face,
a phone held loosely in my hand.
It's a bright, Sunday morning,
only 10am.
Did I violate trust?
A trust that, so far, has meant the world to me.
I think back over the past week:
a week of projects and papers;
a week of arguements and neglect;
but also a week of love,
unknown to me.
But now its a bright Sunday morning
and I'm trapped in my bathroom
reading the words of kindness, passion
and love
on the phone of a stranger
I thought I knew.
"Sometimes I wonder how all those who do not write, compose, or paint can manage to escape the madness, the melancholia, the panic fear, which is inherent in the human situation."--Graham Greene
Chapter 9 talks about depression being a result of repressed agression. Depression causes a feeling of emptyness inside you. You feel as though there is nothing in this world and the only thing inside you is your frozen heart. You lay in bed all day, trying to force yourself to get out and live your life--but too often, you are only going through the motions. Unless you are skilled at hiding it, people will perceive you as feeling sad or down, but you yourself cannot feel these emotions.
Have you ever been so depressed that you feel nothing? Have you ever been so out of your normal self that you begin to see things differently without any sort of chemicals in your body? Perhaps you see things in slow motion. Or maybe you see spots. Or maybe your mind is aware of your body, but your body has lost connection with your brain. Have you ever stopped thinking, just for a moment, and done something terrible? Maybe you were sitting on a sofa and your brain shut down for a few seconds. You remember everything afterwards, but in slow motion. Your brain turns back on, a few seconds later, to your body standing up, and a now empty glass of red wine on the floor. And not your glass of red wine, either.
A painter needs to paint, a writer needs to write, etc. This creative expression is almost an escape from the real world, and is an altered state itself. Not one that is induced by any sort of chemical, but one that is induced by a disease itself. I have often read about, or seen in people, a mental illness being stuck inside them. But, even if it is temporary, the touch of a paintbrush to a canvas, or a pen to a sheet of paper, seems to transfer that suffering out of their body. And you know what, there is nothing else like it. No chemical induced, hynosis induced, anything induced creativity can compare to that of a depression (or other such disease) induced creativity. I suppose altered states, at least those portrayed in these chapters, have a sort of domino affect amongst themselves. There are many things that cause the altered states like depression, schizophrenia, etc. And these diseases, in turn, are just a few of the things that induce the altered state called creativity.
I sit alone in the bathroom, crying softly
tears streaming down my face,
a phone held loosely in my hand.
It's a bright, Sunday morning,
only 10am.
Did I violate trust?
A trust that, so far, has meant the world to me.
I think back over the past week:
a week of projects and papers;
a week of arguements and neglect;
but also a week of love,
unknown to me.
But now its a bright Sunday morning
and I'm trapped in my bathroom
reading the words of kindness, passion
and love
on the phone of a stranger
I thought I knew.
blog 10
There is so much information in these readings it is hard to focus on anything.
I loved what Socrates said..." madness came from God because it is connected with the art of prophecy."
The little part about Evelyn Greenie was interesting to me too. I have an ear infection and this week I have had to put ear drops in my ear & then lay sideways to keep them in. During this time, I cannont hear. But I can....I can hear or feel the vibrations of sound & I can also sense what is goin on around me. I can clealy see that my other senses have kicked in overtime to compensate for my lack of hearing.
I found the information on creativity & disease to be most interesting. Life tends to have a mind of its own...Mine seems to relate to much of this chapter. Its actually really strange to read a book like this and relate diease and mental illness to creativity in such a way that they become scientific components of one another. So much of this chapter was like this for me, and even the next chapter about gender. Natural, biological factors within our make up that may have been seen as flaws or "hang-ups" to some are actually almost viewed as an asset in this book. I mean the down sides are defintely mentioned but its interesting to read nonetheless. the section on alcoholism was especially fascinating to me. The fact that it was under chapter of Disease says a lot. Many dont consider alcoholism a disease. "...physiological, psychological, social and genetic factors." ...interesting
It is incredible to me also, the number and caliber of people who have been effected by disease and how it has maybe impacted their creativity. My favorite writers & artists, Matisse, Capote, Steinbeck, Pollock, Kafka, Rothko....to name a few. I have always been greatly inspired by their work. There are many others too who were not mentioned in this book.
Something else thats interesting that's not mentioned in the book is about manic depression and epilepsy/mirgraines. The book mentions that Lithium was used to treat Manic depression, it still is, but now the same meds used to treat epilesy and migraines are used to treat manic depression or bi-polar too . anit-seizures or anit-convulsants work on the brain in the same way that Lithium works as a mood stabilizer. Interesting...they kinda "correct" the same areas of the brain.
Although I am happy that this is the last blog, (mostly b/c Im off to a warm sunny beach)
...a part of me will miss it....
farewell blogging buddies.... :-)) peace
I loved what Socrates said..." madness came from God because it is connected with the art of prophecy."
The little part about Evelyn Greenie was interesting to me too. I have an ear infection and this week I have had to put ear drops in my ear & then lay sideways to keep them in. During this time, I cannont hear. But I can....I can hear or feel the vibrations of sound & I can also sense what is goin on around me. I can clealy see that my other senses have kicked in overtime to compensate for my lack of hearing.
I found the information on creativity & disease to be most interesting. Life tends to have a mind of its own...Mine seems to relate to much of this chapter. Its actually really strange to read a book like this and relate diease and mental illness to creativity in such a way that they become scientific components of one another. So much of this chapter was like this for me, and even the next chapter about gender. Natural, biological factors within our make up that may have been seen as flaws or "hang-ups" to some are actually almost viewed as an asset in this book. I mean the down sides are defintely mentioned but its interesting to read nonetheless. the section on alcoholism was especially fascinating to me. The fact that it was under chapter of Disease says a lot. Many dont consider alcoholism a disease. "...physiological, psychological, social and genetic factors." ...interesting
It is incredible to me also, the number and caliber of people who have been effected by disease and how it has maybe impacted their creativity. My favorite writers & artists, Matisse, Capote, Steinbeck, Pollock, Kafka, Rothko....to name a few. I have always been greatly inspired by their work. There are many others too who were not mentioned in this book.
Something else thats interesting that's not mentioned in the book is about manic depression and epilepsy/mirgraines. The book mentions that Lithium was used to treat Manic depression, it still is, but now the same meds used to treat epilesy and migraines are used to treat manic depression or bi-polar too . anit-seizures or anit-convulsants work on the brain in the same way that Lithium works as a mood stabilizer. Interesting...they kinda "correct" the same areas of the brain.
Although I am happy that this is the last blog, (mostly b/c Im off to a warm sunny beach)
...a part of me will miss it....
farewell blogging buddies.... :-)) peace
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
blog 10
I found the readings in Hughes to be very interesting this week, especially chapter 9 which dealt with creativity and disease. “In antiquity, loss of sight was connected with prophecy and poetry: music and song exist independently of sight.” Hughes use the musicians Stevie Wonder and the late Ray Charles as examples to prove his point and I would definitely agree with him. In the case of these two artists the loss of sight led to their other senses becoming more acute. I don’t think that every person who is blind is automatically a good musician, but with someone who is already musically inclined there increased sense of sound may help them to produce better sounding music. Music may also help a blind person to be creative since they can’t really paint a visual picture. Ray and Stevie are able to express themselves musically through their pianos and be creative using sound as a painter may with his brush on a canvas.
I was surprised that Hughes brought the topic of migraines up when discussing creativity. My girlfriend suffers from severe migraines and when I talked to her about what Hughes said she did agree to a certain extent about experiencing some of the mild hallucinations. I asked her if she felt creative or inspired after having a migraine and she laughed in my face. I know from watching her deal with migraines that they are in no way pleasurable. Her main concern is to find a dark quite place to lie down and wait out the pain. She does experience hallucinations in the form of stars or flashes and the geometric forms in her peripheral vision and sometimes extreme tunnel vision. I guess if she was an artist she could use the hallucinations to inspire herself to paint something, but to her there is nothing good that comes from the experience.
I was surprised that Hughes brought the topic of migraines up when discussing creativity. My girlfriend suffers from severe migraines and when I talked to her about what Hughes said she did agree to a certain extent about experiencing some of the mild hallucinations. I asked her if she felt creative or inspired after having a migraine and she laughed in my face. I know from watching her deal with migraines that they are in no way pleasurable. Her main concern is to find a dark quite place to lie down and wait out the pain. She does experience hallucinations in the form of stars or flashes and the geometric forms in her peripheral vision and sometimes extreme tunnel vision. I guess if she was an artist she could use the hallucinations to inspire herself to paint something, but to her there is nothing good that comes from the experience.
Blog 10...artiste maudit
This blog has been tough to write as these last two chapters have hit home a little. I'm glad that these things are not graded on organization.
To begin, I shall take the lighter subject that struck my interest: "...(Picasso's erotic paintings) have a playful quality which adulterate the sensuality one looks for in such work...his scenes are more amusing, delightful, and titillating than exciting." (Henry Miller, Hughes 143) For some reason I find the concept of "amusing" and "delightful" in association with scenes loaded with rape imagery to be nothing short of disgusting. I don't believe that Picasso's use of minotaur has anything to do with the duality of the artist and has more to do with his narcissistic, misogynistic tendencies. Anyone who has had more than an elementary level study on the history of modern art would understand that Picasso saw himself as nothing short of superior to women. (I also feel as though his status as "original" should be revoked in light of the work of his contemporaries, but that's another argument for another day.)
Now on the topic of the Irish drinking because it is masculine. I feel as though the only Irish Hughes knows sit in pubs having contests to see who can drink the most shots of Jameson. I would say that as an Irish-American who drinks, masculinity has nothing to do with it when it comes to art. I do not drink because it is cool, I do not drink because it is manly. Many people have hobbies, the hard thing for many artists is that we have accepted our hobbies as our careers. It is not fun having people criticize what essentially is our soul and having a little liquid therapy is not such a bad thing when given the alternatives. I also want to add that unless you are throwing down paint like Jackson Pollock, you cannot paint while drunk! Buzzed maybe, but in comparing my sober art to my drunk art I realized early on that a sound mind is needed to paint things that work. Perhaps a little absinthe loosened the internal restraints to make the idea possible in the planning phase, (and a little more after to celebrate or cope with an opening) but the actual technique came from stability.
Sober art:
Drunk art:
I'm sick of insanity and art being so closely associated. Van Gogh only sold one painting in his life. Perhaps he was concentrated to a fault, but when Van Gogh painted he cannot be called insane. Anyone who has studied Van Gogh would realize that he was unable to paint when he had his episodes. Anyone who had read his letters would realize that Van Gogh knew he had problems and was doing his best to fix them. I feel as though to obsess so much over disease detracts from the art. Crazy people cannot paint with the focus and intention that only a true artist can and when it appears focused, it is focused to such a fault that it loses any aesthetic value. It is true that many of the surrealists studied insane art, most importantly it was a window into the symbolism of the mind.
To begin, I shall take the lighter subject that struck my interest: "...(Picasso's erotic paintings) have a playful quality which adulterate the sensuality one looks for in such work...his scenes are more amusing, delightful, and titillating than exciting." (Henry Miller, Hughes 143) For some reason I find the concept of "amusing" and "delightful" in association with scenes loaded with rape imagery to be nothing short of disgusting. I don't believe that Picasso's use of minotaur has anything to do with the duality of the artist and has more to do with his narcissistic, misogynistic tendencies. Anyone who has had more than an elementary level study on the history of modern art would understand that Picasso saw himself as nothing short of superior to women. (I also feel as though his status as "original" should be revoked in light of the work of his contemporaries, but that's another argument for another day.)
Now on the topic of the Irish drinking because it is masculine. I feel as though the only Irish Hughes knows sit in pubs having contests to see who can drink the most shots of Jameson. I would say that as an Irish-American who drinks, masculinity has nothing to do with it when it comes to art. I do not drink because it is cool, I do not drink because it is manly. Many people have hobbies, the hard thing for many artists is that we have accepted our hobbies as our careers. It is not fun having people criticize what essentially is our soul and having a little liquid therapy is not such a bad thing when given the alternatives. I also want to add that unless you are throwing down paint like Jackson Pollock, you cannot paint while drunk! Buzzed maybe, but in comparing my sober art to my drunk art I realized early on that a sound mind is needed to paint things that work. Perhaps a little absinthe loosened the internal restraints to make the idea possible in the planning phase, (and a little more after to celebrate or cope with an opening) but the actual technique came from stability.
Sober art:
Drunk art:
I've noticed a similar trend with my favorite artist Modigliani. In studying his earlier works at the Metropolitan Museum of Art with his later piece (done a few months before his death) on display currently at the National Gallery, you can see what a mix of more alcohol, drugs, and worsening tuberculosis had on his style. There is nothing romantic about it. He leaves so much of the canvas untouched by paint, it appears more like a growing sense of "what's the use" than any desired style change. It is sloppy to say the least.
Eyes of painted canvas stare back at me,
Into the gloom of sorrow and regret.
I want to be alone now to pay my debt
To Venus or Eros or none of the above.
The eyes keep watching me write,
As the world becomes dark and not light.
Will you forgive me now,
Or have I exhausted all hope?
The epitaph is all that's left to be wrote.
Now for me the clock ticks away.
You are nowhere near;
Just a canvas painted in tears.
Into the gloom of sorrow and regret.
I want to be alone now to pay my debt
To Venus or Eros or none of the above.
The eyes keep watching me write,
As the world becomes dark and not light.
Will you forgive me now,
Or have I exhausted all hope?
The epitaph is all that's left to be wrote.
Now for me the clock ticks away.
You are nowhere near;
Just a canvas painted in tears.
I was about to write what I thought about the connection between creativity and sexuality/love when I decided that it was best to pull up a painting I had done in April following a tough time for me in that area. (I should also probably mention that I was sober and was using my art to cope with a really bad case of depression.)
Blog 10
This week’s reading explores a different kind of altered state from the drug-induced consciousness that we have been discussing recently. Chapter 9 sheds a different light on how we view “sickness” in our culture, from mental illness to physical disease. Hughes explores these different forms of sickness and their affect on creative consciousness.
In our culture, mental issues are seen by most people in a negative way. We want to separate and label these “abnormal” people and keep them in control. A vast number of the US population is diagnosed with some kind of disorder and given medication (which a lot of the time is misdiagnosed) in order to make them fit to work in our society. According to WeBeFit.com, approximately 44% of Americans are on some kind of prescription drug(s), which most of the time have side affects that are worse than the condition itself. Prescription drugs have proven effective in taming the condition, but limit a person’s emotional and cognitive range which inhibits the creative process. Hughes points out the ways in which physical illness and mental suffering nourishes creativity. He references many famous literary scholars, poets, painters, musicians, philosophers as having suffered from many kinds of disorders that enabled them to explore their complex inner world. One thing that famous creative minds seem to have in common is the way in which they interact with the rest of the world. Many of them explore their painful experiences and structure those experiences in ways that communicate through many different forms.
Blog #10
On page 119, Hughes makes the claim that “inner conflict is often seen as the cause of creativity.” This quote is very interesting to me not only because it’s related to what I want to research for my second paper, but it’s also interesting because I’m not sure it’s correct. Is conflict really the cause of creativity, or does it just appear this way since conflict is an inherent fact of human existence?
Hughes offers much evidence which seems to say yes to the question. The Bronte sisters and their TB, Beethoven and deafness, and Dostoyevsky with his epilepsy all seem to validate the fact that there’s a link between creativity and conflict. Anyone who has listened to one of Beethoven’s symphonies or read Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre will attest that these individuals certainly were creative. And also, considering the physical trials each one faced, it’s also easily acknowledged that each one faced conflict. Another example comes through Frida Kahlo’s painting on page 119. It’s a rather poignant image of suffering, with the tears falling down her face, the nails poking into her skin, the shattered column in her back, and the restraints wrapped around her body. It’s obvious that Kahlo’s a talented painter, but without the suffering she faced through a car accident, I’m not sure she would have been able to paint such a striking picture.
However, despite the myriad examples Hughes gives of individuals who faced conflict and were also creative, I’m still not 100% convinced there’s a correlation (or at least not one as strong as he has implied). Indeed, many of our best creatives faced conflict, but who hasn’t? With the exception of the very young—and even they have faced the trial of birth—I can think of no human who has escaped conflict. Given, some face much greater conflict than others, but it is undoubtedly something which every human faces.
Understanding this idea that everyone faces conflict, I’m now going to go a little scientific. If we were going to do an experiment in which we attempted to prove whether or not conflict is the cause of creativity we would need to place our subjects into groups. First would be our “conflict” group and second would be our “non-conflict” group. We would then observe each group and see which one came up with more creativity. If the conflict group was significantly more creative than our control, the non-conflict group, then we would have proof that creativity is caused by conflict. However, this is an experiment we can never complete because there is no conflict free person, hence there is no control.
I don’t mean to assert that there is no connection between creativity and conflict. After all, Hughes presents an impressive list of people who were both creative and conflicted. Yet, there’s also the fact that, even though it appears there’s a connection, we can’t be entirely sure there is. Whatever the answer is, I think the possible connection between creativity and conflict is a really interesting idea. Additionally, I’m excited to see what I find out when I research this idea further for my second paper.
Hughes offers much evidence which seems to say yes to the question. The Bronte sisters and their TB, Beethoven and deafness, and Dostoyevsky with his epilepsy all seem to validate the fact that there’s a link between creativity and conflict. Anyone who has listened to one of Beethoven’s symphonies or read Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre will attest that these individuals certainly were creative. And also, considering the physical trials each one faced, it’s also easily acknowledged that each one faced conflict. Another example comes through Frida Kahlo’s painting on page 119. It’s a rather poignant image of suffering, with the tears falling down her face, the nails poking into her skin, the shattered column in her back, and the restraints wrapped around her body. It’s obvious that Kahlo’s a talented painter, but without the suffering she faced through a car accident, I’m not sure she would have been able to paint such a striking picture.
However, despite the myriad examples Hughes gives of individuals who faced conflict and were also creative, I’m still not 100% convinced there’s a correlation (or at least not one as strong as he has implied). Indeed, many of our best creatives faced conflict, but who hasn’t? With the exception of the very young—and even they have faced the trial of birth—I can think of no human who has escaped conflict. Given, some face much greater conflict than others, but it is undoubtedly something which every human faces.
Understanding this idea that everyone faces conflict, I’m now going to go a little scientific. If we were going to do an experiment in which we attempted to prove whether or not conflict is the cause of creativity we would need to place our subjects into groups. First would be our “conflict” group and second would be our “non-conflict” group. We would then observe each group and see which one came up with more creativity. If the conflict group was significantly more creative than our control, the non-conflict group, then we would have proof that creativity is caused by conflict. However, this is an experiment we can never complete because there is no conflict free person, hence there is no control.
I don’t mean to assert that there is no connection between creativity and conflict. After all, Hughes presents an impressive list of people who were both creative and conflicted. Yet, there’s also the fact that, even though it appears there’s a connection, we can’t be entirely sure there is. Whatever the answer is, I think the possible connection between creativity and conflict is a really interesting idea. Additionally, I’m excited to see what I find out when I research this idea further for my second paper.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Blog Ten
Blog Ten
As we continue to venture through the Hughes book, the more recent chapters have captured my interest. Chapters nine and ten take us deep into the personal levels of creativity. As we consider and analyze the way diseases, gender, sexuality, and other altered states impact and shape creativity, we consider the humanistic aspects behind the works. While reading, I couldn’t help but think about creativity as a “face” of the creator, as in a representation of who and what the creator is. Take for example Frida Kahlo’s paintings in both chapters nine and ten. In chapter nine the “face” of her painting illustrates the pain she suffered a tragic road accident in 1925, moreover she taught herself to paint. Later in chapter ten we see another self-portrait with tones of despair, sexuality, sadness, and torment all illustrating a relationship she had with Diego Rivera. Another example is the excerpt on Picasso on page 143, explaining the Minotaur and Dead Mare in Front of a Cave. This picture is a symbol of who Picasso is, and his themes reflect his inner attitudes of a specific period of his life. Certainly creators can create works thorough another “face” different from their own, by placing themselves in another’s shoes if you will, but through these chapters I think Hughes wants us to embrace humanistic uniqueness through diverse altered states within or capable by ourselves.
There was a specific point in the reading that made me stop and think: “In the western world, madness—once thought to be divinely inspired—came to be thought of as mental illness. He (Foucault) believed that Western societies have traditionally repressed the creative force of madness (126).” And I think Hughes nails it on the head when he goes on to later say “There are so many value judgments involved in definitions of both creativity and madness (127).” No doubt. Are we not conditioned to steer clear of people who exhibit traits of madness and overzealous eccentricity? And don't many who suffer from a form of mind sickness make it a priority to disguise their illness? Many forms of altered states, drug use, depression, alcoholism, schizophrenia are not discussed publicly, and are viewed negatively. Therefore, I think it is interesting Hughes combines these specific altered states with epilepsy, migraines, cancer, sensory deprivation, and pain. When considering this second set of altered states we tend to have more sympathy, and not so much negativity. Is it because when we think of drug users, and alcohol abusers we think the user can control their condition and therefore we are less willing to sympathize, perhaps the schizophrenia is just “all in the person’s head”... Whereas illnesses such as cancer and sensory deprivation is out of our control, and therefore we agree it is okay to empathize and get closer to the situation? I think it goes back to personal value judgments on what exactly creativity and madness means to each of us--our perception. And I think Huges wants us to take a step back and analyze these perceptions.
Lastly, I went to youtube to see if I could find a clip of Derek Jarman’s (who died of AIDS in 1994) “Blue” video, I was interested to see what it was all about. Here is a link to his piece of work: A perfect example of an altered state inspiring creativity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_-B1klXl3U
As we continue to venture through the Hughes book, the more recent chapters have captured my interest. Chapters nine and ten take us deep into the personal levels of creativity. As we consider and analyze the way diseases, gender, sexuality, and other altered states impact and shape creativity, we consider the humanistic aspects behind the works. While reading, I couldn’t help but think about creativity as a “face” of the creator, as in a representation of who and what the creator is. Take for example Frida Kahlo’s paintings in both chapters nine and ten. In chapter nine the “face” of her painting illustrates the pain she suffered a tragic road accident in 1925, moreover she taught herself to paint. Later in chapter ten we see another self-portrait with tones of despair, sexuality, sadness, and torment all illustrating a relationship she had with Diego Rivera. Another example is the excerpt on Picasso on page 143, explaining the Minotaur and Dead Mare in Front of a Cave. This picture is a symbol of who Picasso is, and his themes reflect his inner attitudes of a specific period of his life. Certainly creators can create works thorough another “face” different from their own, by placing themselves in another’s shoes if you will, but through these chapters I think Hughes wants us to embrace humanistic uniqueness through diverse altered states within or capable by ourselves.
There was a specific point in the reading that made me stop and think: “In the western world, madness—once thought to be divinely inspired—came to be thought of as mental illness. He (Foucault) believed that Western societies have traditionally repressed the creative force of madness (126).” And I think Hughes nails it on the head when he goes on to later say “There are so many value judgments involved in definitions of both creativity and madness (127).” No doubt. Are we not conditioned to steer clear of people who exhibit traits of madness and overzealous eccentricity? And don't many who suffer from a form of mind sickness make it a priority to disguise their illness? Many forms of altered states, drug use, depression, alcoholism, schizophrenia are not discussed publicly, and are viewed negatively. Therefore, I think it is interesting Hughes combines these specific altered states with epilepsy, migraines, cancer, sensory deprivation, and pain. When considering this second set of altered states we tend to have more sympathy, and not so much negativity. Is it because when we think of drug users, and alcohol abusers we think the user can control their condition and therefore we are less willing to sympathize, perhaps the schizophrenia is just “all in the person’s head”... Whereas illnesses such as cancer and sensory deprivation is out of our control, and therefore we agree it is okay to empathize and get closer to the situation? I think it goes back to personal value judgments on what exactly creativity and madness means to each of us--our perception. And I think Huges wants us to take a step back and analyze these perceptions.
Lastly, I went to youtube to see if I could find a clip of Derek Jarman’s (who died of AIDS in 1994) “Blue” video, I was interested to see what it was all about. Here is a link to his piece of work: A perfect example of an altered state inspiring creativity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_-B1klXl3U
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Blog 9
I was happy to find that Hughes finally stated some aspects neurological diseases and how brain deterioration can induce creativity in the music and art. I like how he further elaborated his findings with devotional art in most religions, which is produced for a purpose. I was surprised to find that most famous artist like Van Gogh, Picasso, Bacon hold a meanings behind their art which we never associated. Their purpose was to serve as religious service, yet we never put that association with them. Though, when I read this, I began to see a connection. I further liked how Hughes elaborated this with not only Christianity but also the other religious practices out there. I loved how he connected it with creativity that people with neurological problems can hold a dramatically altering stated of consciousness to create something for the purpose that we don’t think of it as. I realized that these things are embedded in our system. For example the mystic poets, the devotional artists, the famous composers and yet we don’t know what mental stated they when they produced their work. Like Hildegard’s visions and how they were similar to the Hindu Prana and people believed he had visions yet now we find that his migraines contributed to his alter state of consciousness.
I also saw the shamanistic connections Hughes makes with the icons and mandalas. I was surprised to read that “the seed of enlightenment within each person is nourished by the process of visualizing and contemplating a mandala, ” and how Hindu tantric art is stylized to emphasize otherworldliness by using shamanist principles of fasting, prayers. (154) I wasreally shocked… so I googled mandala pictures and info and did see how Hughes made the connection with the cosmic energy and the cosmic principles.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/newgw/sci_blueprint3.htm
I also like chapter 12 a lot since it talked about the drug induced creativity but since this was something I was familiar with already it didn’t hold my interest that much. I did like how the magic mushrooms and the fly agaric did appear in the chapter and since we talked about them last class.
I also saw the shamanistic connections Hughes makes with the icons and mandalas. I was surprised to read that “the seed of enlightenment within each person is nourished by the process of visualizing and contemplating a mandala, ” and how Hindu tantric art is stylized to emphasize otherworldliness by using shamanist principles of fasting, prayers. (154) I wasreally shocked… so I googled mandala pictures and info and did see how Hughes made the connection with the cosmic energy and the cosmic principles.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/newgw/sci_blueprint3.htm
I also like chapter 12 a lot since it talked about the drug induced creativity but since this was something I was familiar with already it didn’t hold my interest that much. I did like how the magic mushrooms and the fly agaric did appear in the chapter and since we talked about them last class.
Blog #9
One of the main questions I’ve been dealing with throughout the class, and one I suspect others have been thinking about too, is whether or not certain types of altered states are “legitimate.” By this I mean to say are certain things seen and experienced in altered states, such as those experienced by Castaneda, actual events (legitimate) or hallucinations (illegitimate). Sometimes I almost want to believe they are real, and at other times I find myself thinking they’re nothing but chemical reactions within the brain. At times it’s been mentally tiring to consider this seemingly endless question, but it’s also been interesting.
Considering this fact (that the class can be tiring but interesting) another question comes to mind. Where does creativity fit into all this? Is creativity which has been inspired by altered states as legitimate as that conceived in a normal state? Hughes presents two different answers to this question and I think they’re worth exploring.
The first answer is yes; altered states creativity is just as legitimate as normal state creativity. On page 156 Hughes writes, “the mind is visited by energies that demand to be understood.” This is very reminiscent of The Field, in which McTaggart explains that everything, even consciousness, is composed of waves of energy. Assuming this is true, creativity is not necessarily an individual’s creation, but is more accurately that individual’s representation of what he has learned from connection with a universal consciousness. Using this reasoning it would only follow that altered states are simply a tool to access this information. If an idea is just out there, waiting to be discovered, then there is certainly merit to altered states and the creativity they inspire.
However, the above answer is not the only one Hughes supplies. In quoting Baudelaire on page 167, Hughes offers a different opinion: “no man who with a spoonful of conserve is able to procure instantly all the treasures of heaven and earth will bother to acquire the thousandth part of it by means of work. The primary task is to live and work.” Here Baudelaire seems to imply that creativity is something an individual achieves by his own work, not an idea just waiting to be found. He states that creativity through altered states (specifically for him cannabis) is not legitimate because it does not require the artist to “live and work.”
I can see and understand the reasoning behind each argument. On the one hand the first argument seems to make the most sense. There are so many common motifs in creativity from around the world that it seems there must be some sort of common connection. Yet, the individualist within me agrees with Baudelaire that creativity is something which the individual must work for and discover on his own. I’ll not try to guess which alternative is correct, but will just leave it as this; another unanswered question.
Considering this fact (that the class can be tiring but interesting) another question comes to mind. Where does creativity fit into all this? Is creativity which has been inspired by altered states as legitimate as that conceived in a normal state? Hughes presents two different answers to this question and I think they’re worth exploring.
The first answer is yes; altered states creativity is just as legitimate as normal state creativity. On page 156 Hughes writes, “the mind is visited by energies that demand to be understood.” This is very reminiscent of The Field, in which McTaggart explains that everything, even consciousness, is composed of waves of energy. Assuming this is true, creativity is not necessarily an individual’s creation, but is more accurately that individual’s representation of what he has learned from connection with a universal consciousness. Using this reasoning it would only follow that altered states are simply a tool to access this information. If an idea is just out there, waiting to be discovered, then there is certainly merit to altered states and the creativity they inspire.
However, the above answer is not the only one Hughes supplies. In quoting Baudelaire on page 167, Hughes offers a different opinion: “no man who with a spoonful of conserve is able to procure instantly all the treasures of heaven and earth will bother to acquire the thousandth part of it by means of work. The primary task is to live and work.” Here Baudelaire seems to imply that creativity is something an individual achieves by his own work, not an idea just waiting to be found. He states that creativity through altered states (specifically for him cannabis) is not legitimate because it does not require the artist to “live and work.”
I can see and understand the reasoning behind each argument. On the one hand the first argument seems to make the most sense. There are so many common motifs in creativity from around the world that it seems there must be some sort of common connection. Yet, the individualist within me agrees with Baudelaire that creativity is something which the individual must work for and discover on his own. I’ll not try to guess which alternative is correct, but will just leave it as this; another unanswered question.
Blog 9<
How are drugs and or hallucinogens in general able to give us the insight or enlightenment that many have said they achieved. Witht hese two chapters there has been an emphasis to em on creatovoty from what seems to be chaotic and consistent randomness. Throughout our teaching of altered states we have been taught that we can achieve a higher sense of self throught the use of a form of meditation and drugs that produce hallucinogens. I dont want to sound like I am repeating myself but why?
Has anyoene evr considered that maybe shamans who have seen the double helix formation in their visions resembling the patterns of DNA was just coincidence. I see it no different then how ancient egyptian hieroglyphs depicted what many believed to be flying machines and electric light bulbs existing several thousand years before. And coming back to drugs I see where many cultures have responsibility in how and when to take these drugs and what you see from them unlike how people today use them just to get a quick high.
These altered states of conciousness to me is purely psychological. The way we experience dreams at night from the randomness of our mind is no different than how we would experience it from the usage of hallucinogens but only more extreme and or enhanced.
Has anyoene evr considered that maybe shamans who have seen the double helix formation in their visions resembling the patterns of DNA was just coincidence. I see it no different then how ancient egyptian hieroglyphs depicted what many believed to be flying machines and electric light bulbs existing several thousand years before. And coming back to drugs I see where many cultures have responsibility in how and when to take these drugs and what you see from them unlike how people today use them just to get a quick high.
These altered states of conciousness to me is purely psychological. The way we experience dreams at night from the randomness of our mind is no different than how we would experience it from the usage of hallucinogens but only more extreme and or enhanced.
blog 9
So I don't really know how to feel about all this. Nick's story about drugs opening up and making you use more of your brain is definitely interesting. I myself have never been a fan of drugs (expect the stuff I use for medicinal purposes). I think it's a control thing. I don't know. I'm kind of naive when it comes to the topic of drugs. I always stayed away from them, and the people around me who did do them never did them around me.
Half of me disagrees with using drugs to enhance one's creativity. The other half knows that a lot of influential art comes from these experiences. I would not be the same person had these artists refrained from using these drugs. I get that, and I accept that.
I don't pretend to understand the brain and how it works. I tried very hard to keep up with the explanations in the beginning of chapter 11. I had a Psychology course at HACC, but let me tell you...it's just in one ear and out the other. But I try. So while the part of the brain are discussed in the chapters, I looked up their basic functions to give myself a refresher. Despite my limited knowledge and inability to retain information, the mind and its infinite capabilities has never ceased to fascinate.
As I am presenting in class today, I'll just leave you with the link.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Structure1.html
Half of me disagrees with using drugs to enhance one's creativity. The other half knows that a lot of influential art comes from these experiences. I would not be the same person had these artists refrained from using these drugs. I get that, and I accept that.
I don't pretend to understand the brain and how it works. I tried very hard to keep up with the explanations in the beginning of chapter 11. I had a Psychology course at HACC, but let me tell you...it's just in one ear and out the other. But I try. So while the part of the brain are discussed in the chapters, I looked up their basic functions to give myself a refresher. Despite my limited knowledge and inability to retain information, the mind and its infinite capabilities has never ceased to fascinate.
As I am presenting in class today, I'll just leave you with the link.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Structure1.html
Blog 9
This weeks readings (at least ch. 11) remind me of one of my favorite authors. Not in the content so much as it is a look at how creativity comes to be but stories about ways of getting there and reaching into something greater than yourself. Of feeling connected and insync with the world around you and how that can lead you to all varieties of fanciful thoughts. The author of which I speak is Paulo Cohelo. You may or may not have heard of one of his books "The Alchemist" but I really do recommend to every person who can read to take time with his works.
His writings touch on the different ways that people can get intouch with their spirituality- which is a form of altered consciousness. Anyways... I will drop this and get on to my point.
I am sorry to say but I find Hughes to be incredibly hard to digest at times. It is not that his content is hard to understand or anything like that. It is just so dry I tend to loose focus.
That being said, I found this weeks reading to be interesting in that it takes a mixed bag of ideas about consciousness and creativity and throws them all together. There is a touch of the scientific that I found to be a good connection (at least in my mind) to the Field... I read that part about brain damage being able to show a new "life" of sorts in another part of the brain and how it can affect an individual in an artistic way that they previously did not show talent. This got me thinking about the idea of the brain as an antenna and not the memory storage device itself... I think that this is only partly believable. If damage to the brain can have an external affect on an individual, which it does, that shows that the organ itself has its own selfsufficient capablitites... What I think could connect the two(because I do strongly believe in the concept of a social or connected conscious), it the idea that the brain has certain areas that are more receptive to different wavelengths than others. It is a symbiotic relationship of sorts which puts equal emphasis on both components. That would help (me at least) to understand the ability of the brain to share a consciousness of sorts with others, but still find life after injury and even new talents, now that the dominant receptors are dead, leaving room for some of the lesser channels to come in picture perfect.
Back to what I said about Paulo Cohelo. Different paths. Whirling Dervishes, Meditation, Quests, Icons, Etc. It all brings us to a state outside of our normal understanding and enlightens us to different views and knowledges. What we intend to do with those knowledges and experiences all depend on our motives, and that is something that he talks about in his stories that I found related to what we were reading. I found it interesting to explore the idea of WHY people choose to experience altered states. What is their motovation. Then I got to thinking about what my motivation would be and I think more than anything I would like to find solid proof of my beliefs. I am fascinated by the different manifestations of thought, religion, belief, personalities... I would want to look at other states in order to gain a better understanding of how to relate or communicate with the world around me.
Thats about it.
Hannah
His writings touch on the different ways that people can get intouch with their spirituality- which is a form of altered consciousness. Anyways... I will drop this and get on to my point.
I am sorry to say but I find Hughes to be incredibly hard to digest at times. It is not that his content is hard to understand or anything like that. It is just so dry I tend to loose focus.
That being said, I found this weeks reading to be interesting in that it takes a mixed bag of ideas about consciousness and creativity and throws them all together. There is a touch of the scientific that I found to be a good connection (at least in my mind) to the Field... I read that part about brain damage being able to show a new "life" of sorts in another part of the brain and how it can affect an individual in an artistic way that they previously did not show talent. This got me thinking about the idea of the brain as an antenna and not the memory storage device itself... I think that this is only partly believable. If damage to the brain can have an external affect on an individual, which it does, that shows that the organ itself has its own selfsufficient capablitites... What I think could connect the two(because I do strongly believe in the concept of a social or connected conscious), it the idea that the brain has certain areas that are more receptive to different wavelengths than others. It is a symbiotic relationship of sorts which puts equal emphasis on both components. That would help (me at least) to understand the ability of the brain to share a consciousness of sorts with others, but still find life after injury and even new talents, now that the dominant receptors are dead, leaving room for some of the lesser channels to come in picture perfect.
Back to what I said about Paulo Cohelo. Different paths. Whirling Dervishes, Meditation, Quests, Icons, Etc. It all brings us to a state outside of our normal understanding and enlightens us to different views and knowledges. What we intend to do with those knowledges and experiences all depend on our motives, and that is something that he talks about in his stories that I found related to what we were reading. I found it interesting to explore the idea of WHY people choose to experience altered states. What is their motovation. Then I got to thinking about what my motivation would be and I think more than anything I would like to find solid proof of my beliefs. I am fascinated by the different manifestations of thought, religion, belief, personalities... I would want to look at other states in order to gain a better understanding of how to relate or communicate with the world around me.
Thats about it.
Hannah
blog 9
I found the Altered States reading this week to be a good summary of the creative process we have been discussing in class. After reading chapters 11 and 12 of the Hughes book I have come to the conclusion that no matter how many drugs you take creativity comes from within yourself. “Puritanism apart, it is generally agreed that art made while on drugs is often less good than art done “cold.””
A talented musician may choose to smoke pot before he writes or performs a song and this may help the final product, but if the artist wasn’t a creative person to begin with I don’t believe they would be making music. Drugs have definitely allowed many musicians to take there song writing to the next level, but they were already creative to begin with. I guess what I’m trying to say is by taking drugs one is not automatically creative. In many cases I think the drug use gives the artist something to write about and something to build off of. All you have to do is listen to Pink Floyd to hear how taking LSD can expand the subject matter one writes about.
The discussion in class of the fly agaric mushroom was very informative and I never realized how much this mushroom was around us in our culture from the time we were little kids. I was very surprised how the fly agaric was involved with traditions and cultures from people all over the world. It seems that the fly agaric like shamanism is used in some aspect in different regions in the world. It makes you wonder how these things are known by some many people so far apart long before long distance travel was accessible to mankind. It seems hard to fathom that so many of our Christmas traditions are linked to this psychedelic mushroom. After talking about it in class it would be foolish to not think there is some connection between all of our Christmas traditions and the fly agaric. I will never look at Santa Claus and his reindeer the same way. When we talked about the color scheme of a Coke can matching the mushroom’s colors I remembered hearing how the original recipe for Coke contained cocaine and I’m not sure if it has any significance, but I found it interesting.
A talented musician may choose to smoke pot before he writes or performs a song and this may help the final product, but if the artist wasn’t a creative person to begin with I don’t believe they would be making music. Drugs have definitely allowed many musicians to take there song writing to the next level, but they were already creative to begin with. I guess what I’m trying to say is by taking drugs one is not automatically creative. In many cases I think the drug use gives the artist something to write about and something to build off of. All you have to do is listen to Pink Floyd to hear how taking LSD can expand the subject matter one writes about.
The discussion in class of the fly agaric mushroom was very informative and I never realized how much this mushroom was around us in our culture from the time we were little kids. I was very surprised how the fly agaric was involved with traditions and cultures from people all over the world. It seems that the fly agaric like shamanism is used in some aspect in different regions in the world. It makes you wonder how these things are known by some many people so far apart long before long distance travel was accessible to mankind. It seems hard to fathom that so many of our Christmas traditions are linked to this psychedelic mushroom. After talking about it in class it would be foolish to not think there is some connection between all of our Christmas traditions and the fly agaric. I will never look at Santa Claus and his reindeer the same way. When we talked about the color scheme of a Coke can matching the mushroom’s colors I remembered hearing how the original recipe for Coke contained cocaine and I’m not sure if it has any significance, but I found it interesting.
blog nine
I have consistently enjoyed reading the Hughes book and found chapters 11 & 12 to be just as informational and pleasant to read (in a Discovery Channel special sort of way). Chapter 11 was interesting to me because of the information it offered on the brain structure and the idea of collective consciousness. If, according to the text, damage to the frontal lobe causes a loss of identity (149) and creativity can exemplify our identities, then perhaps creativity could stem from the frontal lobe. Hughes states that researchers have discovered that religious and philosophical thinking comes from the temporal lobe, so maybe some creative thought derives from that area. Or, possibly, creativity isn't inherent in those areas, but it is those areas that inspire creative thought (which could be taking place in another part of the brain altogether). Infinite possibilities, but wouldn't it be quite an advancement for mankind if we could figure out if stimulating these parts of the brain could induce creativity? A sort of creativity-on-demand capability? I suppose that this is attempted by some of the substances discussed in chapter 12. Unfortunately, chapter 12 also outlines the negative side-effects of substance use. This may be why Keats insisted on his theory of "Negative Capability" (which was--finally!--explained to me as something similar to meditation; a receptive state); he got the stimulation (or lack thereof) without the "coming down" from a drug trip.
Kandinsky's quote in chapter 11 about sound, colors, and words leading to the ultimate vibration: knowledge, supports the notions in chapter 12 that certain drugs may lend to specific areas of creativity (marijuana to jazz music, LSD to both music and writing, peyote and mescaline to religious experiences, etc.). The quote also underscores the ideas of energy and interconnectedness from The Field. McTaggart's theories are also supported in Hughes's example of the mandalas that have appeared in Hinduism, Buddhism, and other religions and cultures, as well as in the dreams of Jung's patients. This makes an even stronger case for the existence of a collective consciousness.
I think what struck me the most out of these two chapters, however, was the reminder that it is not the drug or even the talent of the individual that determines creativity. As always, it is the thought (or potential for thought) involved. Hughes's creativity by default (152) makes me think that my lack of talent in any type of "artistry" is not so much a visual-spatial deficiency so much as it is an incapability of appropriate thought (or thought process). What drives creativity is inspiration; "successful" or "creative" artists find this through their preferred form of altered states of consciousness.
Kandinsky's quote in chapter 11 about sound, colors, and words leading to the ultimate vibration: knowledge, supports the notions in chapter 12 that certain drugs may lend to specific areas of creativity (marijuana to jazz music, LSD to both music and writing, peyote and mescaline to religious experiences, etc.). The quote also underscores the ideas of energy and interconnectedness from The Field. McTaggart's theories are also supported in Hughes's example of the mandalas that have appeared in Hinduism, Buddhism, and other religions and cultures, as well as in the dreams of Jung's patients. This makes an even stronger case for the existence of a collective consciousness.
I think what struck me the most out of these two chapters, however, was the reminder that it is not the drug or even the talent of the individual that determines creativity. As always, it is the thought (or potential for thought) involved. Hughes's creativity by default (152) makes me think that my lack of talent in any type of "artistry" is not so much a visual-spatial deficiency so much as it is an incapability of appropriate thought (or thought process). What drives creativity is inspiration; "successful" or "creative" artists find this through their preferred form of altered states of consciousness.
blog 9
After we finished reading the Hughes text last time I was disappointed. Not from the text, of course, but I was under the assumption that this brief window into Altered States was the only time we were reading this text this semester…but naturally, I was wrong. Chapters 11 and 12 were fantastic (most notably chapter 12). I am enjoying the progression towards the creative states of mind that stem directly from altered states of consciousness. The previous texts we have read this semester have allowed me to view artistic outlets with an entirely new perspective. In the past, I would view a Picasso, or read Kerouac and state immediately: these guys are blowing their minds out with drugs. But I am beginning to understand that the creative minds behind the works I find most dear may have indulged themselves into an alternative universe rather than blasted their mental molecules into oblivion.
What I enjoyed most about chapter 12 was the way the book prescribed various artists drugs of choice. After learning about the individual drugs (and the responses they provoke) it is interesting to view the works they composed while they were on them. I used to read Allen Ginsberg’s Howl, and immediately believed he was smoking marijuana throughout its composure, but the Hughes text assigns peyote as the actual drug. After learning about peyote and the effects it has on our consciousness, the overwhelming “rambling” text is able to be view in an entirely different light.
Another interesting synopsis I encountered was Hughes’ description of marijuana: “The emphasis on music may be significant. Music and cannabis “have the same frequency,” according to some modern musicians.” In addition to this, Hughes states, “Many of the French Haschischins reported the phenomenon of synesthesia, the ability to “hear” colors, “see” sounds.” This is an interesting observation. Perhaps, this ability to “see” sounds is where the source lies for the creation of intertextual harmonization that previously had not been “seen” by composers of the past. Louis Armstrong is noted for his use of cannabis in the Hughes book and if we observe the liberal changes Armstrong introduced in jazz in the 20s, it is possible to correlate his usage of the drug and what is considered by jazz aficionados as “hot”, or “outside playing.” If anyone would like to discuss jazz with me, I can explain this to them or visit the website below for a list of jazz terms. But this concept can be applied to countless musicians. For example; where did George Harrison hear how the sitar could be applied to “rock n’ roll”? Where did Paul McCartney discover the “musical mode” that would provide the vocal line for “Eleanor Rigby”? In a musical sense, he was using a “mode” that was dead for hundreds of years, but he somehow made it “work” within rock n’ roll. By now I’m sure everyone is sick of hearing me introduce The Beatles into nearly every blog, but I feel that it is a necessity. There is not one rock n’ roll group that has changed the course of music more than them. And they were the quintessential experimenters with mind altering substances. For more proof of this, listen to their first album, Please Please Me. No drugs here, with the exception of cigarettes, alcohol, and perhaps barbiturates. Then, listen to either Rubber Soul or Revolver. It is astonishing. From this point on, as they grew in their drug habits it only pressed the limits of acceptability even more.
http://www.humboldt1.com/~jazz/glossary.html
What I enjoyed most about chapter 12 was the way the book prescribed various artists drugs of choice. After learning about the individual drugs (and the responses they provoke) it is interesting to view the works they composed while they were on them. I used to read Allen Ginsberg’s Howl, and immediately believed he was smoking marijuana throughout its composure, but the Hughes text assigns peyote as the actual drug. After learning about peyote and the effects it has on our consciousness, the overwhelming “rambling” text is able to be view in an entirely different light.
Another interesting synopsis I encountered was Hughes’ description of marijuana: “The emphasis on music may be significant. Music and cannabis “have the same frequency,” according to some modern musicians.” In addition to this, Hughes states, “Many of the French Haschischins reported the phenomenon of synesthesia, the ability to “hear” colors, “see” sounds.” This is an interesting observation. Perhaps, this ability to “see” sounds is where the source lies for the creation of intertextual harmonization that previously had not been “seen” by composers of the past. Louis Armstrong is noted for his use of cannabis in the Hughes book and if we observe the liberal changes Armstrong introduced in jazz in the 20s, it is possible to correlate his usage of the drug and what is considered by jazz aficionados as “hot”, or “outside playing.” If anyone would like to discuss jazz with me, I can explain this to them or visit the website below for a list of jazz terms. But this concept can be applied to countless musicians. For example; where did George Harrison hear how the sitar could be applied to “rock n’ roll”? Where did Paul McCartney discover the “musical mode” that would provide the vocal line for “Eleanor Rigby”? In a musical sense, he was using a “mode” that was dead for hundreds of years, but he somehow made it “work” within rock n’ roll. By now I’m sure everyone is sick of hearing me introduce The Beatles into nearly every blog, but I feel that it is a necessity. There is not one rock n’ roll group that has changed the course of music more than them. And they were the quintessential experimenters with mind altering substances. For more proof of this, listen to their first album, Please Please Me. No drugs here, with the exception of cigarettes, alcohol, and perhaps barbiturates. Then, listen to either Rubber Soul or Revolver. It is astonishing. From this point on, as they grew in their drug habits it only pressed the limits of acceptability even more.
http://www.humboldt1.com/~jazz/glossary.html
Blog Oct 28th
The first thing that caught my eye in the reading was the mentioning of Freud. I am interested in psychology and he is a name that comes up quite often. He ultimately hypothesized the separation between the conscious and unconscious mind. He notes that the conscious process may simulate conflict into creative art (149). Later it is notes in the test that consciousness is now seen as more of an operation. It affects certain areas of the brain in response to stimuli. I combined the two ideas and came up with the thought that the “conflict” Freud talks about can be considered as a form of stimuli. Therefore, as result consciousness would respond. If conflict can be simulated into creative art, then it’s possible that creativity lies in the consciousness. Am I making sense?
Today my group is holding the class discussion. I chose to focus on diseases that enhance creativity. Like I said, I am interested in psychology, so I rather enjoyed researching a few common mental illnesses that increase creativity. I focused on frontotemporal deterioration, because it was mentioned in the test. Also, I chose bipolar disorder and depression, because they are such common diseases. I found it interesting that such diseases could result in promoting creativity. If one part of the brain fails, another part of the brain could catalyze activity in another; possibly the creative part of the brain.
William Blake was an incredibly creative man. The test notes that he held the imagination to be the spark of the godliness in humanity (153). Imagination and creativity pretty much go hand-in-hand. I’ve seen several of Blake’s paintings and they are unbelievable. The man has a fascinating and marvelous imagination. The first time I saw one of his paintings was in the movie The Red Dragon, adapted from Thomas Harris’s book of the same name. I believe the painting is titled “The Lady and the Red Dragon” or something of that nature. It was beautiful. His art is seemingly from another world, in this case, a darker world. I suggest checking it out.
Today my group is holding the class discussion. I chose to focus on diseases that enhance creativity. Like I said, I am interested in psychology, so I rather enjoyed researching a few common mental illnesses that increase creativity. I focused on frontotemporal deterioration, because it was mentioned in the test. Also, I chose bipolar disorder and depression, because they are such common diseases. I found it interesting that such diseases could result in promoting creativity. If one part of the brain fails, another part of the brain could catalyze activity in another; possibly the creative part of the brain.
William Blake was an incredibly creative man. The test notes that he held the imagination to be the spark of the godliness in humanity (153). Imagination and creativity pretty much go hand-in-hand. I’ve seen several of Blake’s paintings and they are unbelievable. The man has a fascinating and marvelous imagination. The first time I saw one of his paintings was in the movie The Red Dragon, adapted from Thomas Harris’s book of the same name. I believe the painting is titled “The Lady and the Red Dragon” or something of that nature. It was beautiful. His art is seemingly from another world, in this case, a darker world. I suggest checking it out.
Blog 9
Throughout my years of schooling (elementary school-present), I've always seen certain types of artwork and wondered where the heck the artists got their ideas from. More so when I was younger, I would just find myself staring at the paintings in amazement at how cool most of them were, I never really understood the meaning behind most of them, just knew that they looked pretty awesome. As I started getting older, I realized that a lot of artists were on drugs when creating paintings, music, books etc. Everytime I read a certain type of book or come across a different kind of painting, I think to myself if these artists were on drugs while creating their works of art? Of course, if a story is weird enough.. I just assume that the author was either plain crazy or was tripping on some heavy drugs. But then again, people can still have decent imaginations and creativity without have to be on drugs. Drugs obviously effect people differently, but the authors and artists that came out with some great things, why are we so quick to judge them about their past with drugs? If they didn't commit serious crimes or anything of that matter, why should it be a big deal if they were high at the time they created something?
The whole fly agaric thing is still racking my brain. I never really took notice to how many 'red and white' things are being commercialized these days.. is it still associated with the drug?? Just like how Coke comes out with its special limited edition Christmas bottles that sort of have a trippy design (sometimes).. is that related to that drug? Tons and tons of thoughts run through my head after our class discussion of fly agaric. It kind of blows my mind that it isn't illegal.. I guess maybe because they can't control the places it grows? Regardless, Monday in class was the first time I've ever seen a picture of fly agaric and I still don't understand why someone would want to eat that!!! When the book started talking about marijuana, I immediately started thinking about how people are trying to get it passed, so that patients can use it to maintain their pain to a minimum. That would be an interesting class discussion right there. I liked reading these two chapters because they gave me more insight about things I really didn't know that much about. However, I won't be able to view Christmas the same anymore.. darn you fly agaric!!!
The whole fly agaric thing is still racking my brain. I never really took notice to how many 'red and white' things are being commercialized these days.. is it still associated with the drug?? Just like how Coke comes out with its special limited edition Christmas bottles that sort of have a trippy design (sometimes).. is that related to that drug? Tons and tons of thoughts run through my head after our class discussion of fly agaric. It kind of blows my mind that it isn't illegal.. I guess maybe because they can't control the places it grows? Regardless, Monday in class was the first time I've ever seen a picture of fly agaric and I still don't understand why someone would want to eat that!!! When the book started talking about marijuana, I immediately started thinking about how people are trying to get it passed, so that patients can use it to maintain their pain to a minimum. That would be an interesting class discussion right there. I liked reading these two chapters because they gave me more insight about things I really didn't know that much about. However, I won't be able to view Christmas the same anymore.. darn you fly agaric!!!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)