attempts to explain genius

[alocispepraluger102]

the nature of genius

an interesting discussion of the components of genius, something often on the minds of jazz fans.

Edited March 2, 2011 by alocispepraluger102

[sonnymax]

the nature of genius

an interesting discussion of the components of genius, something often on the minds of jazz fans.

Ho hum, yet another rehash of the genius = madness hypothesis. I wrote a graduate research paper on creativity and madness 20 years ago after some pompous windbag in my abnormal psych class pronounced, "Van Gogh would not have been Van Gogh were he not mad!" There's even a conference on the subject held in Santa Fe every year. My research came up with some interesting findings: 1) "creativity" and "genius" are not static concepts, but have changed significantly over the centuries; 2) an artist deemed a genius is more likely to be seen as "touched by madness", and an artist's disturbed behavior tends to be viewed as a reflection of their genius; and 3) If you examine the quality of the work produced by artists suspected of having been psychologically disturbed, you are likely to discover that their best work coincides with periods of relative emotional health and stability, rather than episodes of psychological turmoil and instability. All too often, authors of these kind of papers highlight the rate of an artist's productivity to support their argument, equating quantity with quality.

[cih]

If I remember it right... Dr Hans Prinzhorn’s groundbreaking study from the 30s ‘The Artistry of the Mentally Ill’ covered some of these ideas - I think the main thrust of his work was that the creative impulses (which he split into various tendencies - ‘ornamental’, ‘imitative’, ‘playful’, ‘symbolic’ etc) were present in everybody (obviously the quote in the link about Chopin’s vision was pre-Freud) - and that the works of the mentally ill artists do not access ‘mysterious’ realms related to their diagnosis, but normal drives which may be heightened (and so enhanced) by the illness. Later, when the Nazis attempted to discredit the work of expressionist painters by comparing their work with those in Prinzhorn’s collection, they inadvertently demonstrated the validity of the ‘banished’ art from the institutions. Prinzhorn was dealing with creative abilities which he regarded as universal....

Also, maybe the translation of external phenomena (the raindrops) into a delerious personal expression doesn’t have to indicate a mental illness - Dali faked something like this with his paranoid-critical technique - “spontaneous method of irrational knowledge based on the critical and systematic objectivity of the associations and interpretations of delirious phenomena” - surely it could happen unconciously too - ie Chopin needn’t have actually been aware of hearing the rain, doesn’t mean that he didn’t.

And I’m sure we’ve all had hallucinations of drowning only to find ourselves playing beautiful melodies on the piano.

[Niko]

it's in German but this is a TV feature on female artists/inmates from the Prinzhorn Collection which I found pretty great

part 3

don't know how much you can appreciate it without getting the words but imho there are some pretty amazing objects to see in there (and very "modern" for their time, i.e. mostly late 19th century)

Edited March 2, 2011 by Niko

[alocispepraluger102]

.........food for thought.

thanks, niko