Artistic Drugs Part One: The Artist on Drugs

I brought up in my last post The Beatles and their drug habits. I wanted to expound upon this topic this week. After all, there are many artists in history who have been under the influence while creating magnificent artwork. Such artists include musicians, authors, painters, actors, etc. No field of art is untouched by the influence of drugs.

The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix all did hallucinogens such as marijuana, LSD, and magic mushrooms. Many beat poets such as Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac were also under the influence of marijuana. True, that was in the hippie generation of the 60s and 70s, and who didn't do some drugs then? What about today? The lead singer of Fall Out Boy confesses to frequent drug use, I've lost track of how many times Snoop Dogg has been arrested for possession, and there are photographs of Drew Barrymore and Cameron Diaz sharing joints. Clearly the artist on drugs is not a thing of the past.

Another thing to consider is that drug use is no longer such a taboo subject within the arts. The movie Pineapple Express was a huge box-office hit, and it is about a stoner and his dealer. When asked how he came up with the idea, writer and leading actor Seth Rogan answers that he got really high and started writing. This is a far cry from the times when drug use in movies was used purely as a warning of the peril drugs may lead to.

I do not think anyone can deny that drugs such as marijuana and LSD lead to increased creativity and have contributed to some great artistic works. The artist on drugs seems to be able to open their mind and let ideas flow more freely. My question to you all is this: Does the fact that an artist created his or her work while under the influence make the artist any less talented?

Response to Andrew Roiter: Ethical Dilemmas Degrading Art

Andrew asked, Is it morally right to separate an artist from his work if we find the artist's own morals questionable?

I would say that an artists' morals should not affect how we view their art. If one sees a painting and is filled with awe at its beauty, why would it become less beautiful if just because you found out something undesirable about the person who created it? For instance, The Beatles--one of the most popular bands of all time, if not the most popular--were under the influence of drugs while writing many of their songs. Despite that, many people who are anti-drug listen to their music because the message and and talent within the songs is so awesome that it doesn't matter to them what habits the artists had. Van Gogh was literally insane and cut off his ear, but he is also regarded as an influential and talented painter.

I will say as well, though, that it is possible for information about the artist to can cause a change in one's interpretation of the artwork, which can change one's opinion about it. I know that sounds a little convoluted, but don't worry--I will explain. Say, for instance, you saw and ancient Egyptian wall painting of a man holding a baby. You might look at it and think, "Wow, that's really cool." Then you find out that the painting was done by a man in support of killing Jewish infants by throwing them to crocodiles. Suddenly the you see the painting in a new light, and do not think it is as cool anymore.

My question in response is this: Why do you think people have so much trouble setting aside their morals so they can appreciate art? This seems to be a problem that has been present for centuries.

Simon Cowell: Art Critic or Asshole?

Simon Cowell is a big name in the music business. He is a television producer/music executive who owns a television and music production house, and is active on many well-known television shows. He is known for his blunt criticism as a judge on talent shows such as American Idol and Britain’s Got Talent. Many such criticisms have shocked and astounded both those receiving them and the viewers at home, and some insults have even caused tears and tantrums. In short, Simon Cowell is infamous.

Cowell has been critiquing aspiring artists for years now—whether that means dashing their hopes against the sharp pointed tips of his wit or handing them that golden ticket to Hollywood. We all know that music/singing is an art form and since he is critiquing such things, that makes him an art critic, right? But then again, he rarely gives any reasons for the judgments he passes; he just insults people. Further more, what really qualifies him to pass such judgments, and he is not really doing it for art’s sake—he is doing it because it is how he makes money.

So here is my question: Is Simon Cowell an art critic or just a wealthy asshole?

Response to Katherine Marchand: Qualities of an Art Critic

Katherine asked the question, Do people benefit from reading art reviews from critics who may have different tastes than themselves?

I think definitely believe that people could have a lot to gain by reading art reviews--both from people who have similar tastes and those who have different tastes. Before I took Great Monuments of Art last semester with Laura Thompson, this would not have been the case. I would have said, "Why do I need someone else to tell me about the painting I'm looking at right in front of me?" Now, though, I realize the importance of considering other views.

When I was in Great Monuments of Art, Professor Thompson would put an image on the projector and we would study it. She would then ask us what we saw. Every single time, somebody would notice something I didn't or interpret a detail in a different way than I did. This made me think about the artworks in new and different ways, and allowed me to learn that much more about them.

The same concept applies to other types of art, as well. When you watch a dance performance, you may interpret the dancer's emotions and movements differently than the person sitting next to you. Another listener may hear a different message in the song playing on the radio. We are all unique beings with our own points of view, and there is nothing wrong with sharing and learning with each other.

My question is response is: Do you find it easy to consider a point of view different from your own with regards to art? Why or why not?

Phallic Symbols in Architecture

Now I know some of you may not think that architecture is art. However, we studied such things in my art history class last semester, and I therefore considered it an art form. If you disagree, feel free to write a blog debating against me. The subject of THIS blog, though, is not whether or not it’s art; it’s about the phallic symbols within that art.

For thousands of years, buildings and statues have been created in the shape of an obelisk—the phallic symbol of the Egyptian Sun God, Osiris. Essentially, they look like giant penises (peni?). I included a picture of some examples. From left to right, the buildings are the Washington Monument in D.C., the Place de Concorde in Paris, and the Eifel Tower.

These buildings are symbolic of power and strength. It is almost like somebody was compensating for something. The bigger the phallus, the more potent your power is, I guess? To me this seems utterly ridiculous, since the vagina is much more powerful than the penis. After all, vaginas expand and contract to produce life itself, where as a penis is so puny it can get bent in half or broken just from one wrong move.

My question to everyone is this, Why are we not commemorating the female body in our architecture? I mean, the closest we get is half-naked women on the prows of ships…

Response to Jillian Covey: Significant or Irrelevant?

Jillian asked, Do you think that artwork created for an art class or as an assignment should still be considered art?

Let's review some of the definitions of art we've come up with as a class. We spoke of intentionality--the intent to create art. Art that is created because of an assignment definitely falls into this category. Even if your intention is to create a piece of art to get a good grade, you still have the intention to create art.

Another definition of art we explored in class is the conveyance of an emotion. Even if the student in the class does not put much effort into his work of art, chances are he will still convey an emotion. Whether he actually feels that emotion while creating it, or it is just the viewer of the piece who picks up on the emotion, the chance of a piece of artwork having no emotional content is slim.

All in all, I would definitely say that artwork created in a classroom setting counts as art.

Question in response: Do you think that forcing our children to take art classes (as many elementary and high schools do) creates in them an appreciation of art, or does it cause them to resent it?

Who Has the Right?

In the 1800's, there was a new fad sweeping through the cities of France. Artists picked up their brushes and easels and flocked to the countryside, where they spent days observing the beauty of nature and trying to capture it in their work. These artists would soon be the cause for an entirely new and different way of painting: Realism.

Up until this time period, artists painted historical events or classical themes. The idea of painting what you see in front of you--instead of what has been known to happen--was a new concept. It was also a concept that many people in the art world frowned upon. Artists such as Theodore Rousseau and Charles Daubigny were not allowed to exhibit their work in the French Salon, as decided by the jury who ran it.

Realism was an important step in the development of art as we know it. Not only was it important an beautiful in its own right, but it also brought about Impressionism. Such artists as Claude Monet were part of this movement--and were kept out of the Salon. These new forms of artwork were deemed by the jury as unacceptable.

Hundreds of years later, we appreciate the works of the realists and impressionists. There are very few people, after all, who have not heard of Monet. However, during the time period in which this was all taking place, these artists could not display their works.

My question to you all is this, Who has the right to determine what is or is not art, and who should decide what works are displayed in museums, galleries, etc?