Drugs and art

[Fleetfootphil]

It's pretty well established that artists use drugs. Is this a good or a bad thing? I know someone who thinks that writing a song while high is cheating- which would mean that nearly all Beatles music is tainted and Paul McCartney is the Jose Canseco of pop music. I take the other side- any way to get there is okay with me, including a drug-induced altered state of consciousness. If alcohol is considered a drug, the list becomes enormous and Rothko should provide the letterhead stationary to print it on.

Thoughts on the relationship of drugs to art or to creativity itself?

[HANDSON]

In my younger days I really enjoyed smoking dope. Part of the attraction beside the obvious high was the sense of camaraderie I felt with others of like anti-establishment mind. Also, I was under the, what I now consider delusional, impression that I was gaining true insights into innovative directions for my art to take.

When I looked back on those times I found no tangible results from these presumed revelations. So, I came to the conclusion smoking dope, though a very pleasant way to pass the time, led no where. I came to see it as a waste of time.

[Fleetfootphil]

The comraderie was a big part of what I did not like about drug use. If what I have read is right, tons of great poetry would not have happened without cocaine keeping the poets at work. I don't see that as having led nowhere, although for specific individuals the generalities almost never apply.

[HANDSON]

I wasn't implying my experience is true for all, but just relating how the activity played out for me. Aldous Huxley found considerable value in his experiments with psychedelics and I've always appreciated his thoughts.

[Belinda]

I've taken only small quantities of speed, and barbiturates. I found that while they have limited uses in emergencies, productivity is not one of them. It's good to look at the adverse side effects of mind altering medicines before making a considered decision to take the risk.

[Fleetfootphil]

I'm trying to get at the bigger picture- how do drugs fit, what is their place in the arts as well as creativity?

[Belinda]

Mind altering medicines do not help anybody to produce good works of art. Those few artists who do produce well while their brains are trying to metabolise some poison or other, do so despite the poison, not because of it.

[Fleetfootphil]

"Romantic poets Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Percy Bysshe Shelley, William Wordsworth, Lord Byron, and John Keats all produced what many critics consider their best works while under the influence of opium and laudanum (a liquid form of opium commonly prescribed as a pain killer in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries). Nineteenth-century French writers such as Théophile Gautier, Arthur Rimbaud, and Charles Baudelaire became known collectively as the Hashish Club because of their drug experiments, and the American poet and horror writer Edgar Allan Poe wrote of drug-induced hallucinations in some of his short stories."

"Romantic poets Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Percy Bysshe Shelley, William Wordsworth, Lord Byron, and John Keats all produced what many critics consider their best works while under the influence of opium and laudanum (a liquid form of opium commonly prescribed as a pain killer in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries). Nineteenth-century French writers such as Théophile Gautier, Arthur Rimbaud, and Charles Baudelaire became known collectively as the Hashish Club because of their drug experiments, and the American poet and horror writer Edgar Allan Poe wrote of drug-induced hallucinations in some of his short stories."

http://www.enotes.com/drugs-and-literat ... literature

You really think that Lennon and McCartmey, not to mention the Grateful Dead, did their work despite their use of drugs? I think the opposite, they did their best work in conjunction with their use.

-- Updated December 15th, 2012, 8:47 pm to add the following --

Sorry for the double post. I had another quote that was lost but, if you follow the link, it's there somewhere. Perhaps I should blame my own drug use for such a shameful waste of others' reading time but, lord lord, as I live and breathe, I am stone cold sober as a judge. What to do, what to do?

-- Updated December 21st, 2012, 1:20 am to add the following --

Hmmm.... in terrorist hunter terms, I guess this is a sleeper cell.

[Blazing Donkey]

Thoughts on the relationship of drugs to art or to creativity itself?

Drugs, like anything else, can be a tool. What results their use has on creativity varies from individual to individual.

I have used various hallucinogenic and euphoric drugs with varying results on my creative process: sometimes a drug has been useful in allowing me to isolate from my mind all unwanted emotions, thereby allowing me focus intently on a creative project. Other times, I have found drugs to be a complete distraction to my process.

-- Updated Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:52 pm to add the following --

Mind altering medicines do not help anybody to produce good works of art.

The world according to Belinda.

[Fleetfootphil]

I think drugs give us a quick link to a different awareness, an alternative way to look at what, in the common way, seems banal, boring and tedious. Sometimes, to get out of our stilted and disingenuous rut, we need that. I am in favor of using them.

Not all drugs are poison any more than all foods are.

[Belinda]

The world according to Belinda.

Naturally. I am me speaking . My slight personal acquaintance with mind altering drugs is all I can offer as personal testimony but I thought it might be useful.

The famous poets who took drugs and still produced lived at a time when opiates were sold over the counter. The thing about opiates is that you only feel normal when you have a dose inside you. Non-addicts feel normal all the time. Perhaps we should think about opiates and hallucinogenic drugs in different way when we are considering inventiveness and the uses of fantasy.

[HANDSON]

I think drugs give us a quick link to a different awareness, an alternative way to look at what, in the common way, seems banal, boring and tedious. Sometimes, to get out of our stilted and disingenuous rut, we need that. I am in favor of using them. .

My experience suggests that the drug induced view of the banal, boring and tedious as something more quickly returns to the banal, boring and tedious once the drugs effects subside.

[XavierAlex]

The artist creates the art regardless of any mental state he or she is under. Drugs and alcohol don't make the artist. And art that was created under the influence of some drug is simply just another outlet. The quality of art may or may not be better. It is true the Beatles were heavily influenced by pot and LSD. And 'A Day in the Life' may not have existed without hallucinogens; however, it took time, practice, work and their early work before drugs would have made any difference. As I see it, drugs are negligible when considering productivity and quality.

[Blazing Donkey]

Naturally. I am me speaking . My slight personal acquaintance with mind altering drugs is all I can offer as personal testimony but I thought it might be useful.

I'm not trying to invalidate your reality, though I am suggesting that it is wrong for you to state that your reality must necessarily be my reality or that of others.

The famous poets who took drugs and still produced lived at a time when opiates were sold over the counter.

That statement is inaccurate. Many famous and unknown artists, poets, musicians, etc have and do continue to use drugs as an element of their creative process. The legality of drugs is completely irrelevant.

The thing about opiates is that you only feel normal when you have a dose inside you. Non-addicts feel normal all the time.

This statement calls into question the notion of "What is normal?" - which is a whole discussion in itself. However, consider that even without external drugs, our minds are constantly being affected by internal drugs such as adrenalin, norepinephrine, dopamine, and many other neurotransmitters.

I submit that many of the anti-drug arguments are completely illogical because they pre-suppose the validity of their own position as a given before even engaging in a discussion on the subject, as well as the notion that using drugs is somehow 'unnatural' even though just about everything in our society is also unnatural as well as our many means of stimulation.

Perhaps we should think about opiates and hallucinogenic drugs in different way when we are considering inventiveness and the uses of fantasy.

I think would tend to agree, though, like anything, one should be careful as to not let the drug become their sole source of creative mechanism.

[XavierAlex]

Many musicians use drugs and it happens all the time. I argue that the creative urge is there regardless of any type of external use. The examples seem a little biased here. I would doubt if you took Bill Gates or someone and gave him a few tokes, he'd suddenly know how to use a guitar and be Jimi Hendrix.

I do however believe that the inverse happens. That artists tend to go for drugs because of their creativity. But I don't think it necessarily adds value to most work.