 |
| Saunders huffing lighter fluid (self-portrait) featured by Luxton |
Yet, this often unspoken topic of illicit drugs and the direct effects it has on people's neurochemical pathways and creativity had the clearest connections. Here, we see direct manipualations of the brain mechanisms and how it influences and shapes and inspires artist's works. For example, Huxley was a pioneer of art inspired or under the influence of mescaline and created works regarding his experiences (Vesna). His book thrived with these recollections and the aesthetics.
 |
| Saunders under influence of Xanax (self-portrait) featured by Luxton |
Bryan Saunders, in a similar manner, directly shaped his art by trying various drugs and creating a self-portrait of himself following each consumption of drug (Luxton). Though at the expense of his own body and with some effects of brain damage, he created numerous works (two featured to the right) that illustrated the drastic effects of drugs on oneself and how it alters one's perspective.
However, that raises another question of how much art has been created purely due to the consumption of such drugs. Fields raises a question about musicians who admitted to using drugs while creating their art: "Was the music they produced using a pharmacological crutch worth the silence of music unborn, which will never be heard because of their premature death?"
 |
| Jamison suggests mania of mental illnesses drives art |
This alludes to the art created by those who didn't take drugs, even for mental illnesses. The mania driven in the neurochemistry produced art quite unseen. Many talented writers throughout history were plagued by different disorders of the mind and often succumbed to unfortunate ends due to the lack of treatment. Yet, leading up to this, the musicians, writers, painters, and such create beautiful works driven by the highs of their disorders or as coping mechanisms.
So, we see that "The creative work of an artist who overcomes their mental illness–often by turning to art and literature to help them cope–is an inspirational personal triumph. But the creative work of a person who induces mental imbalance pharmacologically is the product of a drug" (Fields). Clearly, manipulations of neuroscience through drugs or alternate brain wirings as seen in mental disorders add more depth and perspective to art that otherwise would not so clearly defined and illustrated. Do we judge differently based on how that art was created or the background pathway it took?
Works Cited
Fields, Douglas. "Creativity, Madness and Drugs." Scientific American. 22 Nov. 2013. Web. 15 May 2015.
Luxton, Rebecca. "A Man Got High on 52 Different Drugs Then Drew These Trippy Self-Portraits." Ryot News + Action. Ryot, 2014. Web. 15 May 2015.
"The Influence of Drugs in Art History." Huffington Post. 20 Apr. 2011. Web. 15 May 2015.
Vesna, Victoria. "Neuroscience pt. 2." Online video clip. Youtube. Youtube, 29 Apr. 2012. Web. 14 May 2015.
Vesna, Victoria. "Neuroscience pt. 2." Online video clip. Youtube. Youtube, 29 Apr. 2012. Web. 14 May 2015.
Hi, I really like the part where you connect professor's lecture material to your own understanding. Also, I think the example where you mentioned that there are also other artists who use the drug to create art works is really appropriate. Most importantly, I think that you thought about this issue critically, saying the negative effects of this behavior. Also, the blog as a whole is really easy to read and flows logically. Good job!
ReplyDeleteThis was an extremely well presented post and I didn't even think before to look at those artists who needed treatment yet refused it. I think it's hard to say an artist channels pure creativity upon the influence but that distinction is what makes art so controversial. Many artists produce art hoping to get a reaction but what do we want them to react to? I thought your post helped to ponder these ideas!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI recently read Jamison's autobiography and appreciated it very much; I'm surprised I hadn't heard of it sooner. It's definitely the first-hand portrayal of striving to get to your fullest potential despite a profound amount and quality of setbacks - internally & externally.
Is there a question of whether much (or any) art has been created due to drug consumption? Or did this drug consumption merely allow the user to explore a part of themselves they had otherwise been closed off to, repressed, or did not know how to gain access to? Perhaps the drug unlocked something inside of them - Xanax definitely causes a more accepting interpretation of internal & external stimulus. Like they finally had a card to swipe and be granted entry onto the twisted yellow brick road to expression of the self - whichever self we're exploring in whatever millisecond we blink and take notice to who we may be.
Hi Chena,
ReplyDeleteGreat post and some reallly interesting points you bring up regarding substance abuse influencing creativity and it's relationship to the artist. Substance abuse and the arts have gone hand in hand for quite some time as we all know. I don't know if drug use is a useful metric to include into an evaluation of a work of art or of an artist (I also disagree with the notion of judging art, but that's a whole other thing). While everything from coffee and tylenol to opiates and cigarettes can be considered a drug, I think a "drug" of some sort has found its way in changing the human perspective in most works of creation. Ain't life a trip? :]