The Trap of Inspiration

[Avena Cash]

Originally Posted by artyczar

I think a real artist is always full of inspiration whether they are working or not. It's best to stay working and produce art. I don't get monkeyed up with all the "what is art" BS because it's just so irrelevant to me. Art is art. Artists make art. Real artists think differently than people who are not artists. It's just so. They (we) are constantly creating, thinking, inspired, dazzled, interested and aesthetically engaged. Not working I think is about some sort of depression, excuses, laziness, self-sabotage and this kind of thing - not losing inspiration really. When we get depressed we refuse inspiration.

I agree.

Not working sort of detaches us from art... Working is not about being mechanical and uninspired, it's about keeping the artist in ourselves alive and feeding it.

[Magical_Realist]

Originally Posted by StephenC

I don't know how that idea of painting only when inspired got started. It must have begun around the time abstraction did. I cannot think of a more counterproductive notion.

It comes from the Romantic-era idea that poets received inspiration from beyond themselves--from the Muses or from the divine. By being more sensitive, soulful, and attuned to the spiritual world, they were able to "receive" poetry as a divine gift, and thus bring it to mankind.

I've had a few times in my life when creative work seemed to be flowing through me, as if I were channeling it. I do think the Romantic poets were onto something. But the idea got picked up by every half-baked amateur who wanted to be seen not just as a poet (or artist), but also as a more spiritually-attuned human being.

I suspect the ineffectual artiste awaiting their Muse before picking up a brush came about once pre-made paints in tubes and pre-primed supports came into wider use in the 19th century. Before then, to paint at all involved a lot of dirty work before you could get started. Paying others to do it for you was expensive.

But eventually art supplies as we know them started to make an appearance, and they were inexpensive enough to create a new artistic phenomenon: petite bourgeoisie "Sunday painters." Painting became a respectable hobby. And many impractical, head-in-the-clouds types turned away from poetry and took up painting--or, more often than not, not-painting, because they spent a lot of time waiting for the Muse to call, and not nearly so much with a brush in hand.

Look around now, and it's no different. Art supplies don't seem all that cheap to us, but they actually are. Drawing and painting (and collage, sculpture, assemblage, street art, and digital art) are within the means of more people than ever. And hardly anyone reads poetry anymore, so making some sort of art (or at least talking about it) is a popular way of proving one's ethereal, otherworldly, "inspired by the Muses," "Indigo child" cred.

That's a very quick and dirty version of it. And rather a long-winded way of saying that waiting for inspiration to strike before getting to work is the hallmark of an amateur.

[stlukesguild]

As a matter of discussion, do you think it possible to have a technically correct painting that looks mechanical because it lacks inspiration or soul? Just curious as to the perception of where the line is drawn between discipline and inspiration.

Of course. It's not only possible but common. Yet I do not think this is the assumed result of the "keep painting anyway" approach. The more you work, the better you are at capturing the spark, thanks to the practice and the flow of being with the paint every day. I think this makes you more fluent and more productive at the same time. I feel like I have 10,000 ideas begging to be first, not a few gems floating in on occasion. The more I do with them, the more inspired I get. We're all different.

Certainly it is possible to churn out art that is mechanical and uninspired. From personal experience, however, I have never found the creative process to ever become mechanical. Every new painting presents new and unexpected surprises... and as I work my way through these I am repeatedly struck with little sparks of inspiration.

I fully agree that the more we work... the more fluent and the more inspiration strikes. This should be obvious. There is no question that my work now is far better than what I was doing as a student... no matter how "profound" and "expressive" those works seemed at the time. Now of course some artists "muses" or "inspiration" or "genius" will always be greater than others. Michelangelo, Rubens, Titian, Van Gogh, Picasso... but all of these artists labored at their craft regularly as well.

[stlukesguild]

I often get ideas that are interesting to me while I am walking, but I wasn't in any sense waiting for it. Sometimes I solve problems better while walking. An example might be needing to know how to handle a plot twist. I would more likely walk for this than sit, because I don't like to sit.
None of this is to say that one shouldn't grab an inspiration when it happens wherever it is. We have probably all stopped flat-footed in the middle of something we are doing to run for paper.

Of course. I have ideas hit me while I am just sitting on my couch staring down a painting for hours. Suddenly I am hit with an "aha! moment"... or a question "what if" and I grab a sketch book and make rapid changes... or right on top of the painting in process I'll draw over the image in process or wipe it out altogether. But as you suggest, I don't sit back waiting for the inspired moment before I allow myself to paint.

I think their is a great analogy to be made with the musician. The great Spanish poet Federico Garcia-Lorca spoke of the "duende". The "duende" is "inspiration", the "spirit", the "soul", the "muse"... "God". A good musician often plays night after night. If he or she is a professional, the performance always remains at the highest standard. But then there are those evenings... all of us have probably witnessed them at least once... when a given musician or group is absolutely "on fire"... they have the "duende". Everyone can feel it. They suddenly are on another level altogether. But then they have to play again tomorrow night... in another town... in Omaha or Kansas City... and they can't sit back waiting for the duende/muse/soul/spirit/God to strike again.

http://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_g...on_genius.html

[stlukesguild]

I don't know how that idea of painting only when inspired got started. It must have begun around the time abstraction did. I cannot think of a more counterproductive notion.

It comes from the Romantic-era idea that poets received inspiration from beyond themselves--from the Muses or from the divine. By being more sensitive, soulful, and attuned to the spiritual world, they were able to "receive" poetry as a divine gift, and thus bring it to mankind.

Actually, the idea that inspiration was something beyond the individual... the "muse"... the "genii"... God... the "duende"... far pre-dates Romanticism. The Romantics posited a far more self-centered, adolescent view of inspiration. Rather than inspiration being something external, it was imagined as something within. The artist was imagined as having some greater vision... sensitivity... or genius... a divine gift. This concept justified every eccentricity of the artist. "You can't expect me to work... I'm a genius!" "How could you think to ask me to paint such a thing... I am a genius!" "I can't be bothered with such petty concerns as meeting deadlines, painting the subject that I was commissioned to paint... I'm a genius!" "No... I can't paint today... I'm just not feeling inspired."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1IJiAXjj7k

I've had a few times in my life when creative work seemed to be flowing through me, as if I were channeling it. I do think the Romantic poets were onto something. But the idea got picked up by every half-baked amateur who wanted to be seen not just as a poet (or artist), but also as a more spiritually-attuned human being.

I suspect the ineffectual artiste awaiting their Muse before picking up a brush came about once pre-made paints in tubes and pre-primed supports came into wider use in the 19th century. Before then, to paint at all involved a lot of dirty work before you could get started. Paying others to do it for you was expensive.

You may be onto something here. I also suspect that the suggestion linking the Romantic notion of "inspiration" with Abstract Expressionism has a degree of merit. One might remember that the period of Ab/Ex was obsessed with psychological therapy and many therapists... and many "artists"... began to look at art as a form of therapy. The reality is that the individual who cannot work upon his or her art unless the mood or inspiration has struck is not an artist more rather a dilettante using art as a form of therapy.

That's a very quick and dirty version of it. And rather a long-winded way of saying that waiting for inspiration to strike before getting to work is the hallmark of an amateur.

I fully agree. And I will also point out that the notion that when the "artists' " feelings... his or her emotions... personal involvement... sense of inspiration... are more important than the end product... than the work of art itself... that also is the hallmark of the dilettante or the amateur.

[saje]

Originally Posted by AllisonR

I can't speak for other artists, but for me, in general I need the disciple for about 5 minutes, the time it takes to get going. Everything after that is inspiration. Or at least, in another place. I am no longer needing discipline to paint, if I am already painting. And it normally takes no discipline to continue. More likely it takes more discipline to stop painting. Make sense?

inspiration comes from the psyche, from the unconscious within. i know these forums are laden with conscious perceptual superiority by the volume in numbers- but- i, personally can only work within the realm of spiritual influence.

[fritzie]

Just as people are free to believe, or not, in the spirits or dieties that suit them, so those who enjoy the creation of artworks are free to paint daily or whenever they please!
Anyone who thrives on the practice of working daily and catching the wind daily because the kite was already being held in the air can do so, and there is much evidence that many artists, both great and not have worked that way.
But those who live their lives as they live them and paint when they feel like it are surely free to do that! I don't read anyone as suggesting that people shouldn't make the choices that they prefer for themselves.
There is a great deal of evidence that among those who have reached high levels of attainment, there is a distinct correlation between the amount of work they do and the quality, but there are exceptions to the general pattern. More importantly, people do their art or work for different reasons and make their own choices.

[saje]

Dieties? please!? who said anything about deities? did you ever see a deity in my sculptures?? "free to paint whenever"- excuse me! sculpting is a daily obsession. yes, life does get in the way but inspiration is more akin to a bucket overflowing than a puddle awaiting evaporation (reread Allison). this is the misconceptions that the blantant bias here in this "chorus of the popular mass" find comfort in the misalign of the truth. creating within the inspiration of the psyche within is real, sorry to bring storm upon this banality.

"catching the wind daily" - this means well but reeks of fantasy, fairies and wizards and this dismissal favors this Guild of the historical and is just an easy and safe flag to rap around ones insecure self.

"TRAP" is the word where this post's "hole" is dug in the "Mauseleum" of Work Art. Inspiration is not elitist, not a TRAP, not an excuse, not a whim, not a religion, not a clown, not clearly walled, not an escape. it is more real than the realists escape from reality. It is pure reality the includes the beauty to the ugly of all that is within time and life. it faces reality and at least tries to mention the transitory underlying truth and bare meaning to what we are.

[saje]

Originally Posted by theartofvincent

You're thinking inside the box saje and you're waiting desperately for an opinion that has semblance of supporting your view so you can jump on it and 'be right' instead of say, discussing other views. I dig inspiration and have experienced it many times - but this thread is about observing the dangers of relying on it, and that being in artist is in the blood not a spontaneous feeling that comes now and again.

You accuse me of congratulating myself yet I am here to discuss and you to stare beady eyed into the fog and go towards any light that is yellow but none that are green, blue or orange. Life and opinions are a vast spectrum of ideas and though I have ones I cling to more firmly than others you don't see me looking to discredit or accuse others of anything.

first, "inside the box" is so, inside the box. this is the creativity thread!! i need an "opinion that has semblance of supporting..." thanks for the humor! "i dig inspiration", i dig clay out of the field, liquify it, clean it and return it to a plyable state. a natural clay does have a creative quality to it, oh well, never mind. "this thread is relying on it" yes, i guess it is and i don't. i live inspiration. i do love the feel of a shiver of inspiration running down my back. i tear when i see an inspiring dance that feels the art of the body movement. "stare beady eyed"
<a style="display: inline;" href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=beady+eyes" h="ID=SERP,5219.1" sb_id="ms__id3588">Urban Dictionary: beady eyes


www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=beady+eyes
1. beady eyes adj: small round eyes that glisten with insightfulness, supreme knowledge of technical tax issues and a profound ability to "make it happen."

oh, thanks! how sweet of you.

"discredit others" no, just a small voice that disagrees with a certain amount of strength! Take out the word "trap" and then we can start on a thread of discussion... thanks and best to ya!

[saje]

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

I fully agree. And I will also point out that the notion that when the "artists' " feelings... his or her emotions... personal involvement... sense of inspiration... are more important than the end product... than the work of art itself... that also is the hallmark of the dilettante or the amateur.

i totally disagree! i would prefer to make one inspired piece than leave a million self indulgent markers. i personally don't put my name on any sculpture-how amateurish i know. i know no trap of inspiration, i live in inspiration. this is just me, i understand. may i alway be that amateur in the eye.

[theartofvincent]

Originally Posted by saje

beady eyes adj: small round eyes that glisten with insightfulness, supreme knowledge of technical tax issues and a profound ability to "make it happen."

Personally I like this random websites definition of 'beady eyed'

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/beady-eyed

Adj. 1. beady-eyed - having eyes that gleam with malice

[fritzie]

The reference to catching the wind, like mention of a kite, was only a metaphor, with no fairies or wizards in mind. More concretely it was a statement that many people find that once they settle into the workplace (studio, desk,... wherever) ideas begin to flow quite reliably. Settling in there on a regular basis, then, starts the flow for them rather than the flow's coming first.
But that's not to say that's how it works for everyone. That people's creative processes work differently is well known!
Oh, and I did not mean that any particular person here does or doesn't believe in any dieties (and I have no idea who does or doesn't). All I said was that that needs to be a personal matter for people without a right or wrong to it.

[stlukesguild]

may i alway be that amateur in the eye.

With your fantastic notion of art as little more than personal therapy, you probably have no need to worry on that account.

[Carcharhinus]

I wrote an essay in university on the psychology and psychoanalysis of creativity that this thread just caused me to recall.

Freud concluded that most of humanities traits stem, psychologically, from experiences that we as children go through as our selfish, animal instincts as babies are suppressed when we are taught by our parents how to function in modern society.

However many years earlier Aristotle theorised that like every animal we learn our earliest lessons, which once would have allowed us to survive in the wild, through imitation. We learn to walk, talk and feed by copying what our parents and those around us do and Aristotle seemed to think that artistic desire, to create or copy the world around us in what ever medium is a lingering effect of this childhood instinct. Freud's psychoanalysis is of course based on those suppressed animal instincts and desires managing to sneak their way through our socially acceptable exteriors and manifest themselves in a veiled manner in our every day lives.

I'm not saying it's true or not because it's not exactly the most provable idea but I do think it's interesting to consider in the context here. Humans historically like to pretend they're higher, cultured beings but are we just disguising the fact that we're playing out an animal instinct with words like 'inspiration' and 'art'?

[Doug Nykoe]

Originally Posted by saje

may i alway be that amateur in the eye.

Always trying to see with an amateur eye, sounds a lot like fostering or nurturing humility. I get caught up in stubborn situations of my own making at times. So to me, at the very least this can take time or waiting for a new beginning be it small or large in scope. But you will know it when it presents itself but being ready to accept it, is just as important, like the beggars bowl sooner or later a coin will fall. I will carry these thoughts with me today…thanks for the reminder.