|
some musings on creativity, crystal meth and criticism Part One
2004-07-23 00:58:31
fri 23/07/004 01.00
sfcausa t's true enough that no amount of dope can make an artist out of a sow's ear (I use the words "art" and "artist" in the broadest sense here, inclusive of musicians, writers, actors and the rest), that talent and inspiration don't come in zip loc bags, and everything else your high-school music teacher tried to tell you. And we've all known some no-talent nod god who can't play a B chord and still thinks he's Johnny Thunders, or seems convinced that if he drinks enough vodka he'll wake up Jim Morrison instead of hung over. That being said, there are a hell of a lot of addicted artistes or artistic addicts out there doing great work, and a real affinity of some kind between drugs and creative artists which has never been debunked or explained. Dope might be a piss poor substitute for talent, but methamphetamine, anyway, can sometimes trigger creative impulse almost as a side effect. As anyone familiar with the ways of wireheads knows, a lot of speedfreaks get into projects -- making stuff. Inky-didjitted ballpoint doodlers scratching hours of rococo arabesque into forests' worth of cheap sketchbooks. Scream-of-semiconsciousness scribes who fill *more* notebooks with drivel, digression and gratuitous adjectives and want you to read it and tell them what you think. Hot-glue-gunslingers capable of turning an entire suites of furniture into a collage of eyeballs and earrings ripped ou of magazines. Queens who sew so many sequins and bugle beads on their gowns that if they try to walk in them they move as slow as snails and sound like wind chimes -- or spend an hour and twenty minutes putting on their makeup and ending up looking like Alice Cooper on the*Billion Dollar Baby* tour. Or your friend's roommate who spends 36 hours dicking around with MSPaint. Or some guy in a coffeehouse with a set of Pentel markers he's using to painstakingly color in every panel and page of an old MAD magazine. The thing is, what makes the real difference between the work being merely a tweaker project -- time and energy pissed away elaborately, with great care and perseverance --and an actual artwork done by someone on speed? And just when --at what point --does it become a *good* piece?When does a f crank-bingeing sophomore with a comp book full of spaced-out spew or a longwinded paranoid's finger-stuttering word=processed word-salad suddenly morph into Jack Kerouac writing *The Subterraneans* in a three-week nonstop Benzedrine typathon --or for that matter, me when I'm on a roll? Where does the chick who puts Contac Paper on every stationery surface she can reach, end and Andy Warhol's boyfriend Billy using cig pack foil to paper a warehouse in silver, begin? If somebody has an art-fit while spun and the product shows imagination and good workmanship and a personal aesthetic, is that object not a work of art, and if not, *why*? What if said amphetagitated artiste is already talented and the Go-Go only energizes him enough to create the piece under discussion? If somebody's tweak project *appears* to be the work of a real artist, do drugs make the artist after all? I used to be very active in Mail Art [does anyone do Mail Art anymore?] ; some nights I would get high and at sunup there'd be a dozen handmade, very weird postcards in the corner mailbox --watercolor, collage, text. Some of 'em were pretty damn good, visually, and all of 'em unique. Some day I would like to organize and curate a *SPEED ART SHOW*. I'd put out the word somehow, to the drug dens and ateliers and scenester lairs. Paintings and assemblage and sundry ojets d'art created under the influence of methamphetamine. Once the submissions started coming in, first the jury would have to determine which was actually *AHHT*, and then what among it was good enough for the showing. A forthright celebration of amphetamine creativity. TO BE CONTINUED
2004-07-23 09:00:19
I'm pretty big on art myself.
There's a lot of writers here I've always considered artists, surely not excluding yourself 13. Some people here just have a way with words I wish I had. It's one of the reasons I guess this group draws me to it. There's people here I'll read just about anything they write no matter how long it gets, and sometimes they blow me away with the use of just a minimal amount of words too. I've also always preferred drug type of art. It's way more interesting to me than any multi-million dollar paintings! I grab things here and there at concerts, art shows, gatherings of all types, that usually involve drugs. The Bay Area always seemed to be just loaded with great drug art if you're looking for it. Maybe it's the area? Maybe the abundance of good drugs there? Heck if I know, but it goes pretty deep into the history of that area, beginning back in the 1800's with some of the outrageously tedious architecture of the victorian period (and even prior), to the Golden Gate Bridge, Ansel Adams and his photography, or the beatnik era, with the odd writing styles, weird funky ass furniture, movies, into the acid days of the 1960's and 1970's, look at the old hippy fest posters of drug bands of that area, right up to now, or at least last I was there in the 1980's, art was every place! So was drugs tho. One thing for sure is drugs seemed to always be the common denominator of all periods in that area. That's cool by me, drug art is always preferred. Heck, even some of the dope growers are artists in my eyes. I surely saw a greater amount of art in the Bay Area than any other place I've been to. Another thing that always stuck with me from that area is how some drug heads treated their cars like works of art and many were truly works of art imo. I think drugs always went good with art. If it's the artist on drugs or the viewer of art that's on drugs viewing the art. I've bought art on drugs and it's just not the same when there's no buzz ;/ If I wasn't buzzed up maybe I wouldn't have paid for it or seen the beauty in it? Interesting topic! To me art comes in all forms. Writers, actors, painters, builders, musicians, drawers, doodlers, gardeners, sculpters, even cooks can fall into art with me. Some people can turn whatever they're doing into "art". Actually I think damn near everything has art to it! "All the world's a stage", that makes the world art, and I'd have to agree. Art can even be seen in nature. Personally I think some people see the art in near everything, others just ain't looking for it, maybe totally unaware of it? Maybe they didn't do enough drugs??? :) I bought wrapping paper recently just because I saw art in it. Wildest most colorful prints I ever seen! Too nice to use as wrapping paper. Interestingly, what grabbed my attention was the first sheet was close-up paintings by french artists of dense poppy fields. Tho theres other flowers too, the poppies just grabbed me, made me look, made me buy. Anyways I thought they'd look good framed, at least the poppies. There was no way I could believe the artist didn't know the power of the poppy and truly appreciate it enough to see the beauty in it and take the time to actually paint the picture of the field. Art is every where imo! Art and various drugs just seem to go with each other like chocolate cake and milk, like pb&j, like drugs and people! I don't think I started appreciating art until I started drugs. Afterwards I see art in everything now. I see most people with unique talents of their own, imo they too are artists. Tho drug type art just seems so much better!..just looks so much more interesting, especially when you just know or even suspect drugs were involved in the art. I think drugs and arts will always be a major part of all societies, always were, as long as man has been around. As long as man is around. I sort of forget the question? Was there even a question? :) If there was, I think the answer is "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", and the beholder sees either art, or is just on drugs? Anyways, as long as there's people, there will be art, there will also be drugs. There'll be people on drugs who see art. There'll be artists on drugs making art. Art is pure expression in the raw. We take drugs to change our perception, our expressions, art sets a mood, so does drugs, they just go hand and hand I think, always did. Tho I'd have to agree, there is drug art of all types of drugs. Speed, acid, pot, opiates, whatever. Drugs also make the art so much more interesting. Drugs, art, people, food, music, air, water, sunshine, weather, expression, they'll always be here as long as man is. I think if the art can put the viewer in the same state of mind as the artist was in, even for just a brief moment, then the artist succeeded in their art. Some people will see the art, others just don't. I'm babbling, time for sleep ;'/ -- <--\\<-\\^/-((-<-)-< Fun Times When You're Having Flies
2004-07-25 00:04:49
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 00:58:31 -0700, Sparrow 13
<13@NOSPAMslavehouse.org> wrote: > fri 23/07/004 01.00 >sfcausa > >t's true enough that no amount of dope can make an artist out of a sow's ear >(I use the words "art" and "artist" in the broadest sense here, inclusive >of musicians, writers, actors and the rest), that talent and inspiration >don't come in zip loc bags, and everything else your high-school music >teacher tried to tell you. And we've all known some no-talent nod god who >can't play a B chord and still thinks he's Johnny Thunders, or seems >convinced that if he drinks enough vodka he'll wake up Jim Morrison instead >of hung over. That being said, there are a hell of a lot of addicted >artistes or artistic addicts out there doing great work, and a real affinity >of some kind between drugs and creative artists which has never been >debunked or explained. > > Dope might be a piss poor substitute for talent, but methamphetamine, >anyway, can sometimes trigger creative impulse almost as a side effect. >As anyone familiar with the ways of wireheads knows, a lot of speedfreaks >get into projects -- making stuff. Inky-didjitted ballpoint doodlers >scratching hours of rococo arabesque into forests' worth of cheap >sketchbooks. Scream-of-semiconsciousness scribes who fill *more* notebooks >with drivel, digression and gratuitous adjectives and want you to read it >and tell them what you think. Hot-glue-gunslingers capable of turning an >entire suites of furniture into a collage of eyeballs and earrings ripped >ou of magazines. Queens who sew so many sequins and bugle beads on their >gowns that if they try to walk in them they move as slow as snails and sound >like wind chimes -- or spend an hour and twenty minutes putting on their >makeup and ending up looking like Alice Cooper on the*Billion Dollar Baby* >tour. Or your friend's roommate who spends 36 hours dicking around with >MSPaint. Or some guy in a coffeehouse with a set of Pentel markers he's >using to painstakingly color in every panel and page of an old MAD magazine. > > The thing is, what makes the real difference between the work being >merely a tweaker project -- time and energy pissed away elaborately, with >great care and perseverance --and an actual artwork done by someone on >speed? And just when --at what point --does it become a *good* piece?When >does a f crank-bingeing sophomore with a comp book full of spaced-out spew >or a longwinded paranoid's finger-stuttering word=processed word-salad >suddenly morph into Jack Kerouac writing *The Subterraneans* in a three-week >nonstop Benzedrine typathon --or for that matter, me when I'm on a roll? >Where does the chick who puts Contac Paper on every stationery surface she >can reach, end and Andy Warhol's boyfriend Billy using cig pack foil to >paper a warehouse in silver, begin? > > If somebody has an art-fit while spun and the product shows imagination >and good workmanship and a personal aesthetic, is that object not a work of >art, and if not, *why*? What if said amphetagitated artiste is already >talented and the Go-Go only energizes him enough to create the piece under >discussion? If somebody's tweak project *appears* to be the work of a real >artist, do drugs make the artist after all? > > I used to be very active in Mail Art [does anyone do Mail Art anymore?] ; >some nights I would get high and at sunup there'd be a dozen handmade, very >weird postcards in the corner mailbox --watercolor, collage, text. Some of >'em were pretty damn good, visually, and all of 'em unique. > > Some day I would like to organize and curate a *SPEED ART SHOW*. I'd put >out the word somehow, to the drug dens and ateliers and scenester lairs. >Paintings and assemblage and sundry ojets d'art created under the influence >of methamphetamine. Once the submissions started coming in, first the jury >would have to determine which was actually *AHHT*, and then what among it >was good enough for the showing. A forthright celebration of amphetamine >creativity. > >TO BE CONTINUED I believe LSD art is the epitome of this phenonmenon. Art is created under such a state that simply cannot be seen unless under the effect of the drug. That does not make the reality which it portrays any less real. Simply because one is 'under the influence' does not immediately invalidate everything a person does. This was the prosecution's argument during the Manson trial in regards to LSD. The witness' LSD use arguably did not exclude her from telling thr truth. In fact, I could easily argue that altered states enable a person to express truths that cannot be found in normal states of consciousness. There is certainly 'drug specific' art such as paintings and music that are only for those 'in the know' but I believe the gap can be bridged. Chances are that all of have in one way or another been affected by a particular Nobel Prize winner's LSD experience. He claims he would likely have not come up with the PCR idea if not for his LSD experience. Trials and tribulations of drug use lifestyles certainly impose a certain wisdom on artwork in particular. Much has been said of the odd correlation between drug use/addiction and artistic "outside the box" thinkers. Many go so far as to say many addicts seem super empathetic towards the plight of others. The 'tortured soul' attitude of many in the fine arts community tends to make me gag. People who elevate themselves above others or judge them according to their ability to express such angst istead of associating with them sell the world short IMHO. I'm probably as guilty as many but I try to be aware of it. A simple look at the music industry will reveal many souls lost to addiction. It may be the frustration/inability to exspress complex thoughts and emotions that the rest of the world seems oblivious to that leads them to frustration and production, who knows. So, Sparrow13... if this post is Part One, where is Part Two?? You sold it for drugs, didn't you? -Ritual ________________________________ Give Me Librium Or Give Me Meth ________________________________ NY04 "For all your recreational shooting needs" - Sporting good store ad slogan
2004-07-25 04:51:19
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 00:04:49 -0400, Ritual
>This was the prosecution's >argument during the Manson trial in regards to LSD. The witness' LSD >use arguably did not exclude her from telling thr truth. Are you talking about Linda Kasabian? -- The deeper you go the higher you fly The higher you fly the deeper you go
2004-07-25 06:35:24
"Sparrow 13" <13@NOSPAMslavehouse.org> wrote in message news:1jp0g01gk9umm7c7gmmh6jcc7klaikfn9a@4ax.com... > Some day I would like to organize and curate a *SPEED ART SHOW*. I'd > out the word somehow, to the drug dens and ateliers and scenester lairs. > Paintings and assemblage and sundry ojets d'art created under the > of methamphetamine. Once the submissions started coming in, first the > would have to determine which was actually *AHHT*, and then what among it > was good enough for the showing. A forthright celebration of amphetamine > creativity. > > TO BE CONTINUED > Boy did this one bring back the memories, hehhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I used to spend literally hours at a time cutting shit out of magazines and making these *really fucked up* collages, lmfao. Whoooo!
2004-07-28 06:25:09
"Sparrow 13" <13@NOSPAMslavehouse.org> wrote in message news:1jp0g01gk9umm7c7gmmh6jcc7klaikfn9a@4ax.com... > Some day I would like to organize and curate a *SPEED ART SHOW*. I'd > out the word somehow, to the drug dens and ateliers and scenester lairs. > Paintings and assemblage and sundry ojets d'art created under the > of methamphetamine. Once the submissions started coming in, first the > would have to determine which was actually *AHHT*, and then what among it > was good enough for the showing. A forthright celebration of amphetamine > creativity. > > TO BE CONTINUED > Wow this brought back some memories. I used to spend days in a crank frenzy, cutting shit out of magazines and making *extremely fucked up* collages. Heh, I wonder if I kept any of them? I also loved duct tape. That shit is indespensible in the geekers repertoire, IMO. One time a friend and I got ahold of a glass etcher thingy and did some redecorating in his apartment. Man, we were high. lmao But I digress.....
2004-07-28 06:09:32
On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 04:51:19 GMT, Old Man Tate
>On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 00:04:49 -0400, Ritual > > >>This was the prosecution's >>argument during the Manson trial in regards to LSD. The witness' LSD >>use arguably did not exclude her from telling thr truth. > >Are you talking about Linda Kasabian? yes -Ritual ________________________________ Give Me Librium Or Give Me Meth ________________________________ NY04 "For all your recreational shooting needs" - Sporting good store ad slogan |
Lębork inwestycje w złoto muzyka siłownia nowy targ rachunek private banking |
