do you think drugs are a requirement.......

to be an artist?

it's something i've always had beef with about artists i've met is they feel you have to be stoned with them in order to be one of them.

I don't do drugs, well, atleast drugs that are illegal. i do enjoy getting shitfaced from time to time and admit i have a thing for nicotine and caffeine as well, but one thing i don't do is come to my drawing table or to canvas sloshy. im always sober when im working on something albeit i do feel odd drawing without a cigarette in my mouth.

this is not to say i havent done art while under the influence of things, i have, and the stuff came out really cool when i was stoned or tripping-back when i did acid and pot- but once the dew cleared, it looked like crap.

and there is a huge connection between drugs, alcohol and artists from poe to warhol but do you really need drugs to be an artist? to make art?

this kinda popped in my head because of a pitch statement a bot made about a certain "artists faire" that's quite popular right now in the promo section, the tagline was something along the lines of a community of artists experimenting with drugs etc. very loose but roughly accurate.

and yeah, not partaking in a joint here and there has admittedly screwed me out of getting my stuff out there in some ventures like with the teeshirt deals because i wasnt a part of the gang if i wasnt getting stoned.

anyways that's my question,:thumb:

some drugs may actually increase your productivity and so will help you to create better art (that's why businessmen due cocaine.)

and also art seems better when you are on drugs.

and some people are just naturally talented. it's a combination of all three.

I think that it's just because artists maybe used to be more of the third option before the widespread use of certain drugs, and as such they were used to being the outcasts of society who was jealous and frightened by people that make them look inferior.

So now artists use these certain drugs in ways that are not art related, but because they want to cope with being shunned by society. Some of them are not even artists at all they are just social misfits who want to justify using drugs by claiming that they are artists.

the fact is that everyone uses drugs, depending on how you define a drug. The standard definition is a substance put into your body for purposes other than nutrition. By that definition we all do drugs all day long because pretty much everything that we eat contains such a substance. sugar is a drug, and so is salt, and so is sodium benzoate and msg.

Another definition of a drug is a chemical that alters your consciousness. Many people speak about getting "high on life", without the use of any external drugs. In fact that was a popular response in a recent BB thread on the subject. Your own body produces chemicals that alter your consciousness, so we are all on drugs all the time, even when we are not eating and even while we are sleeping.

So to talk about these things by limiting them to the scope of a dozen or so illegal substances, is a pretty absurd, stupid and ignorant of how humans function.

art is human expression and the best art has to do with such expressions that appeal to a shared experience of humanity. drugs are really irrelevent to the overall subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

some drugs may actually increase your productivity and so will help you to create better art (that's why businessmen due cocaine.)

and also art seems better when you are on drugs.

and some people are just naturally talented. it's a combination of all three.

I think that it's just because artists maybe used to be more of the third option before the widespread use of certain drugs, and as such they were used to being the outcasts of society who was jealous and frightened by people that make them look inferior.

So now artists use these certain drugs in ways that are not art related, but because they want to cope with being shunned by society. Some of them are not even artists at all they are just social misfits who want to justify using drugs by claiming that they are artists.

the fact is that everyone uses drugs, depending on how you define a drug. The standard definition is a substance put into your body for purposes other than nutrition. By that definition we all do drugs all day long because pretty much everything that we eat contains such a substance. sugar is a drug, and so is salt, and so is sodium benzoate and msg.

Another definition of a drug is a chemical that alters your consciousness. Many people speak about getting "high on life", without the use of any external drugs. In fact that was a popular response in a recent BB thread on the subject. Your own body produces chemicals that alter your consciousness, so we are all on drugs all the time, even when we are not eating and even while we are sleeping.

So to talk about these things by limiting them to the scope of a dozen or so illegal substances, is a pretty absurd, stupid and ignorant of how humans function.

art is human expression and the best art has to do with such expressions that appeal to a shared experience of humanity. drugs are really irrelevent to the overall subject.

---

Beautifully and eloquently put, Morning Glory, and deeply accurate.

drugs are absolutely not neccessary to create art. a good friend of mine is not only very talented, he is very(his paintings sell for upwards of 10 grand and he shows at the armory every year) successful; his paintings pay his bills. he does not do drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VoltaireBlue

drugs are absolutely not neccessary to create art. a good friend of mine is not only very talented, he is very(his paintings sell for upwards of 10 grand and he shows at the armory every year) successful; his paintings pay his bills. he does not do drugs.

---

Then can I have his share of drugs?

No, they're not, but there's a number of factors (some of which were mentioned) at work between the two, creating a correlation.

On drugs' end of the bargain, some drugs - uppers, like coke, caffeine, speed - make you more productive and focused, which helps a ton in the relatively formula-lacking mental processes of artistic creation. Almost all drugs will shift your frame of mind, expanding the sum of your perspectives on life, which helps think outside the boxes and loops that distinguish art from 'mere' skilled labour. And then some drugs will increase your appreciation of art while you're on them, which may not improve your works, but might leave you more motivated to create them.

The artists' end of the bargain is almost mirrored. The same free thinking mindset that helps artists do their thing is more likely to allow them a different perspective on drugs than the prejudist condemnation that is popular with the general public. Aside from that, an artist's already often fringe-of-society or 'outcast' status functions two-fold; those that suffer under it may be motivated to escapism (as MG noted), and those that do not often embrace it as part of their identity, allowing them to bypass anti-drug peer-pressure by function of 'normal people' failing to register as peers.

All of these factors interwine and spiral into eachother; once any of these reasons have an artist trying drugs or a druggy trying art, all are liable to be discovered and mutually fortify one another. And finally, as you've noted, all of these reasons combined have created so many examples of artists doing drugs that it has become a part of 'artist culture', creating a final layer of affirmitive peer pressure and intellectual exposure for those that would consider themselves artists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VoltaireBlue

drugs are absolutely not neccessary to create art. a good friend of mine is not only very talented, he is very(his paintings sell for upwards of 10 grand and he shows at the armory every year) successful; his paintings pay his bills. he does not do drugs.

---

Of course he doesn't. Being a 'successful' artist in the public's eyes and wallets more or less inverses every factor I outlined above, with the sole exception of the one concerning stimulants and general productivity. So with the money to afford it, that's coke or nothing.

My understanding is that artists who use hallucinogens, use them to see things, and experience things, that you can't see or experience in a normal state of mind. But in some ways, I consider that "cheating". It's using a drug to create the creative vision. You end up painting things you saw while on acid, rather than coming up with really weird and cool ideas totally on your own. In my experience, it helps people who are not naturally creative, see and experience strange things that they never would have thought of, or imagined, using their own mind. But people who are naturally creative, and have a really wild imagination to begin with, don't need drugs to help them create unique visions. But I do have to say that some drug users I know, come up with some pretty cool and creative art projects. But as some of you mentioned, some other drug users I know, get stoned and make really crappy art! But I am sure it looks cool to them...

I'unno. An acid trip isn't like a tv show that comes at you vicariously; it's your own mind remixing thoughts, memories and sensory input under the influence of unusual serotonin-receptor stimulation. LSD does not contain information; it cannot 'give' you ideas, only stimulate you to come up with them.

That said, I've never had any overly brilliant ideas while on acid. Mostly I just giggle at cows that look like they're about to burst or get lost in the fluffiness of my tail, stuff like that.

Well, my friends who do acid, do a LOT of acid.

So sure, with a couple hits, it's just an enhancement and slight distortion of normal reality. But they tend to take 30, 50 hits, 100 hits... crazy shit like that.
So they see things they never would have seen on their own.
Other universes, totally bizarre sights and sounds...

So I think if you don't have those kind of ideas or visions on your own, it can give people ideas of things to paint, or strange concepts, etc.

I just like to try to come up with weird shit on my own.
I feel more of a sense of pride over that fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

some drugs may actually increase your productivity and so will help you to create better art (that's why businessmen due cocaine.)

and also art seems better when you are on drugs.

and some people are just naturally talented. it's a combination of all three.

I think that it's just because artists maybe used to be more of the third option before the widespread use of certain drugs, and as such they were used to being the outcasts of society who was jealous and frightened by people that make them look inferior.

So now artists use these certain drugs in ways that are not art related, but because they want to cope with being shunned by society. Some of them are not even artists at all they are just social misfits who want to justify using drugs by claiming that they are artists.

the fact is that everyone uses drugs, depending on how you define a drug. The standard definition is a substance put into your body for purposes other than nutrition. By that definition we all do drugs all day long because pretty much everything that we eat contains such a substance. sugar is a drug, and so is salt, and so is sodium benzoate and msg.

Another definition of a drug is a chemical that alters your consciousness. Many people speak about getting "high on life", without the use of any external drugs. In fact that was a popular response in a recent BB thread on the subject. Your own body produces chemicals that alter your consciousness, so we are all on drugs all the time, even when we are not eating and even while we are sleeping.

So to talk about these things by limiting them to the scope of a dozen or so illegal substances, is a pretty absurd, stupid and ignorant of how humans function.

art is human expression and the best art has to do with such expressions that appeal to a shared experience of humanity. drugs are really irrelevent to the overall subject.

---

so in a nutshell youre saying you dont need "drugs" to be an artist.

I suppose theres never anything wrong with taking pride in doing something your way, but in my experience, methods for thinking outside the box and stimulating creativity add up or even multiply rather than merely functioning as substitutes for one another. As I said I don't get much directly out of acid so I'm not defending myself here, but I'm not sure that it's fair to characterise people that benefit creatively from psychedelics as those that "can't do it by themselves".

Also in my experience, creativity from drugs involves more shifting and expanding of your permanent frame of reference by having experienced perspectives and trains of thought that your personality normally prohibits, than it does the outright copying of stuff you hallucinate up. It's not like watching a tv show, where you just end up with memories of what you saw. You're actually the one thinking and imagining everything, piecing it together from what you see and know, and your mind adapts and learns from that process as much as from what ends up coming out of it - associating and dissociating and generally dancing all over the mental loops and habits that normally keep our thoughts in the straight and narrow, for better or worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by malcolm

so in a nutshell youre saying you dont need "drugs" to be an artist

---

He (He? She? What is MG, anyway?) said a lot more than that, but if that's all you wanted to hear...

yawn.raza, you're boring me.

Well, point in case.

Or is it case in point? I can never remember...

to be an artist you have to either make a living selling what you produce or be dead. If you don't meet one of those requirement then the best you can hope for is to be called talented.......................drugs ain't got nothing to do with art

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raza

Well, point in case.

Or is it case in point? I can never remember...

---

and the cake is a lie too btw.

The caek is perfectly delicious.

Art can appeal to anyone, at anytime at any point. Whether you're stoned when making it, or someone else is stoned while viewing it, or neither is stoned at all. Art is like a metaphorical arm stretching out to anyone willing to reach back.

I guess the reason I say that, is because I have seen some very "normal" people try to do art, and it comes out very boring, very typical, and not very creative at all. But my other friends who do drugs, often come up with some pretty weird and creative stuff. But their quality and execution is often lacking. In fact, many times it's just good creative ideas that they come up with while on drugs, but then they never actually do them. But their ideas are more "out of the box" than the ideas the "normal" people have. I am just lucky that I have a really intense and wild imagination, even without drugs. So I have plenty of weird and interesting ideas. But my general view is that a lot of people have very restricted viewpoints. Limited creativity. I blame that on parents and schools, forcing a "color inside the lines" mentality. Making people think that there is only one "right" way to do things. And with art, it's the opposite. The more "wrong" or "different" art is, the more it's likely to catch someone's eye. So yeah, drugs can help some people break out of their non-creative viewpoints. But it's better if you can do it on your own...

I don't think it's a requirement. For those that use it, in some cases it does help the artist become better creatively. In some cases it destroys all creativity. And it some cases it destroys their whole life (Steven Adler, anyone? Just to name a kind of recent one). It really comes down to each artist and how their bodies deal with taken in certain chemicals....Just like any other normal person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raza

The caek is perfectly delicious.

---

no, raza, keks are delicious, but the cake is a lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by malcolm

no, raza, keks are delicious, but the cake is a lie.

---

ich liebe kekse!:rryumy:

They definitely seem to be a driving force for some artists, but they are far from necessary for everyone. It just depends on each individual, I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

[Eloquent and intellectual information]

---

I agree. Very well put.

I don't think I need drugs to be an artist, but I couldn't sell a painting for more than 20 bucks, so... I might not be the best voice of art.

I have an odd chemical balance, so psychoactive drugs tend to work oddly on me, if at all. I've been able to afford most because of it. I did however like Absinthe, it created some interesting work when I tried it.

Drugs are a tool. You can be an artist without tools.

Let's look at coke or speed. They both give you a lot of energy, but most people do not do productive things with that energy. Listen to a tweaker some time, if even 1% of what they babbled about was usedful or entertaining, we would legalize the drug tomorrow. But it is not. energy with no direction, or a bad direction is useless.

The only thing you need to be an artist is art. Drugs may give you more source material, or more energy, or relax you, but none of that matters if you aren't already making art.

At least that's my take.

Once I joined my band my Mum started hinting that I was on drugs. Her reason was that she has never met a musician who wasnt a druggie when she was going out with a guitar player about 25 years ago. It didnt occur to her that Im naturally distant with mood swings, but she wouldnt believe me.

yaknow,dusk, that's another thing too. when most people refer to other people, they dont take into count possible chemical imbalances. being as drugs chemically alter one's perspective, what about those who already have an altered perspective due to being bi-polar, schizophrenic etc.

there are quite a few artists who are known for that as well.

The stupid thing was at a parent teacher night a few years back one of my teachers said he was worried that I might be on drugs (he didnt know I had my mp3 player on pause xD) and my Mum said it was because of my Aspergers lol

yeah. if it's one thing i've learned over the years is that teachers are for the most part nothing more than an idiot in a suit who stands behind a primer book.

I still remember my high school art teacher giving me a c in class because she felt my artwork was too different from everyone elses in class even though i did about everything they did at about 3/4 the time they took to do it. it'd take them two days to do a watercolor of plants, i'd have it done in fifteen minutes along with creepy backdropping and song lyrics written into the background.

water colors are my bitch lol

no

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by malcolm

yeah. if it's one thing i've learned over the years is that teachers are for the most part nothing more than an idiot in a suit who stands behind a primer book.

I still remember my high school art teacher giving me a c in class because she felt my artwork was too different from everyone elses in class even though i did about everything they did at about 3/4 the time they took to do it. it'd take them two days to do a watercolor of plants, i'd have it done in fifteen minutes along with creepy backdropping and song lyrics written into the background.

water colors are my bitch lol

---

I remember when we had to do "An object in motion" for our major work, mine was a sword being swung. Apparently it was completely wrong, wilt the girl next to me copied a Dragon I painted, thought she did improve it a lot, got told how wonderful she was, even thought the dragon was curled up asleep .
My art teacher was bat shit crazy though, and Im not over stating that.

oh i can dig it. my old teacher had a favorite student too. they went to the same synagogue apparently.

what was really funny about this woman was she was a horrible artist herself but her sis was a professional artist and she visited us one time for our art honor society meeting (the only one i attended before getting that c which kicked me off btw) and you could just feel the sibling rivalry in the air lol

She wasnt her favorite student though, the teacher was always changing what she wanted us to do. And I never once saw this teacher actually make anything

those who can do-do, those who can't do-teach lol

she couldnt do either really lol

good artists don't need drugs

Drugs simply alter perceptions and realities and are absolutely unnecessary for creating art. All they do is alter the artist's perception of what they're creating.

You can create some wickedly bad art by being on bad drugs :)

In the end, no one ever suffered ill effects from creating art while not on drugs (unless they're creating oh, I dunno, Mercury statues?), where as many artists and consequently their art, relationships and even lives have been damaged or destroyed by drugs.

No.
Because not one person is the same.
Some people see art in a million different ways.
Whether they are outside, drinking tea and painting a tree.
Or whether they are rolling their faces off and something moves them enough to create art.

Either way i find artists of all type pretty amazing.
Some of the things i see, i find it humanely impossible to create such an image.
lol.

I suck at drawing.