tortured soul of the artist

[articul8]

Yes not making any claim to originality with the above - just that the popular media is full of all this "oh the afflicted artist suffering for their genius" bollocks and without any understanding that it's kind of structural to an industry where the products are so standardised. And you also get the kind of response already made on this thread - oh but great artists have suffered for their art throughout history - as though what we term "great art" isn't already mediated by later constructs.

I just don't recall seeing an account that took this aspect head-on, rather than exploring the general art historical context. PS I haven't read the Mattick which looks very interesting. I'll have to dig out my copy of Eagleton's The Ideology of the Aesthetic to see if he covers it.

 

[danny la rouge]

If you're looking for the origins of this idea, then de Vigny's Stello is probably the earliest formulation. It's a play looking at the tortured soul of a poet, an idea picked up by Verlaine in Les Poetes Maudits.

 

[Santino]

This is what I was getting at:

I'm talking about a cultural/epistemic shift

A shift from where to where? Evidenced by what?

the category of the artist is freighted

Is freighted by whom?

the notion of "the artist" that we are habituated

We? Habituated?

the popular media is full of all this

So? The popular media is full of all sorts of thing, many of them entirely contradictory.

This sort of enquiry is doomed to circularity and vagueness unless you can actually nail down what it is you think you are talking about. Do you want to establish who the first person to say a certain thing was? Or prove that a lot of people now believe something that they didn't previously? Or what?

It brings to mind those sort of sub-Foucault theories where a single text is taken as emblematic of an entire society without any argument for it being so.

 

[articul8]

Cheers - and that was before Goethe's Werther was it? Know of any secondary accounts of this history?

 

[articul8]

A shift from where to where? Evidenced by what?

A shift in what people in western societies understand by the role and vocation of "the artist" - I'm not after "proving" it I'm after understanding what social changes made this intellectual/cultural shift possible.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

As a practical matter, I don't think a lot of artists have the excess energy to expend on using drugs, etc. I've known a few tortured artists who had to clean up their act before they could produce.

 

[articul8]

I've never really bought into the idea that drugs can unlock some untapped source of genius that would otherwise be closed off. OK difference in sense perception etc might help you to look at things differently. But being constantly smacked off your tits is no recipe for doing anything very interesting.

 

[danny la rouge]

Cheers - and that was before Goethe's Werther was it? Know of any secondary accounts of this history?

Assuming that question was aimed at me, I checked and actually Werther was earlier.

 

[articul8]

Was meant as a genuine question not as a criticism.

 

[danny la rouge]

Was meant as a genuine question not as a criticism.

I took it that way.

 

[articul8]

Seems pretty clear that Goethe was a major cultural reference point in changing the way people thought about the role of the suffering individual artist/genius

 

[Cheesypoof]

No. I suppose in the absence of a mass media, only a very small number of people will ever have actually known him. Artists wouldn't have been quite the same kind of public figure then as they are now. Certain kinds of fame rely on modern media, don't they?

Not strictly true. St Francis of Assisi was regarded like a rock star back in his day, and renowned in Italy in the 13th century. The word of St Francis spread rapidly and the Franciscan order was founded in his lifetime. His speeches were the stuff of legend, and people would flock to hear him speak. Some women were so inspired by Il Poverino (his sobriquet for 'the poor man') that they founded an entire religious order called the Poor Ladies). Read Omer Englebert's biography of St Francis, its great.

 

[Cheesypoof]

Francis 'artistry' was being a genius with words, a great orator and wordsmith.

 

[butchersapron]

The question/point was about the different forms of media through which people found fame historically and the sort of fame that media helped produce - not whether they found fame or not.

 

[Cheesypoof]

The question/point was about the different forms of media through which people found fame historically and the sort of fame that media helped produce - not whether they found fame or not.

lbj was questioning whether, without media, some artists were still well known as public figures. They were

 

[killer b]

no he wasn't.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Francis 'artistry' was being a genius with words, a great orator and wordsmith.

Fair point, cp. To clarify - the 'kind of public figure' I was referring to was one in which the public knew something of the figure beyond their work. In the case of Francis it was his work that became famous, was it not? In the case of a painter such as Carravaggio, it was certainly the work that became known in his lifetime.

To give you an example of what I mean, a story I read just today on the train: Plato was a huge fan of the Olympics and travelled to them one year, staying in a hostel with a young man. Plato liked the young man enormously and invited him to Athens to visit him. Only on coming to Athens did the young man find out that it was the famous Plato who had befriended him. Plato was both one of the most famous men in Greece and a man who could travel wherever he liked outside Athens with nobody recognising him.

I do take your point though - I wasn't trying to claim that fame was a new phenomenon. It clearly isn't - but today's fame is fame both of the work and of the artist.

 

[Cheesypoof]

Fair point, cp. To clarify - the 'kind of public figure' I was referring to was one in which the public knew something of the figure beyond their work. In the case of Francis it was his work that became famous, was it not? In the case of a painter such as Carravaggio, it was certainly the work that became known in his lifetime.

To give you an example of what I mean, a story I read just today on the train: Plato was a huge fan of the Olympics and travelled to them one year, staying in a hostel with a young man. Plato liked the young man enormously and invited him to Athens to visit him. Only on coming to Athens did the young man find out that it was the famous Plato who had befriended him. Plato was both one of the most famous men in Greece and a man who could travel wherever he liked outside Athens with nobody recognising him.

I do take your point though - I wasn't trying to claim that fame was a new phenomenon. It clearly isn't - but today's fame is fame both of the work and of the artist.

yes thanks for your thoughts. St Francis became famous for his personality (hence one of the first rock n roll stars, right down to his distinct looks and outrageous behaviour, such as stripping off naked and giving away his treasure) Francis was a wealthy merchants son but he renounced the lot to become 'Il Poverino,' thus, disgracing his family and becoming extremely well known as this charismatic lunatic who disgraced his father and rejected all wordly goods and family). He also encouraged the escape of St Clare - a great martyr - and her sisters, they were also rich and founded the female version of the Francisans. Francis was also known for a handful of miracles (not insanely miraculous ones like stigmata and such) and his work yes, namely the founding of the Franciscan order which is based on taking the vows of charity in the bible literally and becoming 'Il Poverino' (married to Lady Poverty)

What about Saint Patrick? He was around in the 4th Century (between about 380 - 490) Another good biography 'I follow Saint Patrick' by Oliver Gogarty says that Patrick gained notoriety all over Ireland from his oratory - his works, 'Confessions' (in which he alleges he commited a very serious sin when he was a shephard which many scholars believe was homocide), and The Letter to Coroticus (a British warlord who directed a raid on freshly baptised Christian converts of Patrick). Patrick became very famous in Ireland as the word was spread that this brave welsh orator was spreading Christianity to chieftains and swaying all the women - Patricks manifesto was very feminist - Ireland by the way was barbaric at the time, his fame earned him much credibility. I dont think he was known from his writings, he became known through word of mouth

 

[articul8]

Well OK, but this doesn't really have any connection to the OP since it has no connection to the social role of the artist. I mean Christ became pretty famous and was famous for suffering on the cross - but that doesn't have any (direct) bearing on how we have come to see individual artists as suffering for their genius.

 

[Cheesypoof]

Well OK, but this doesn't really have any connection to the OP since it has no connection to the social role of the artist. I mean Christ became pretty famous and was famous for suffering on the cross - but that doesn't have any (direct) bearing on how we have come to see individual artists as suffering for their genius.

cool. to backtrack, what exactly did you mean in the OP? this bit about commodification and suchlike, it read like a heavy question for an exam paper. Excuse my dumb blondness - can you explain (even just to me and my blondness) in simple terms what you are wondering about?

 

[articul8]

Well, at one time an art work was a unique artefact with an aura of its own - you could only "consume" it by being physically in its presence - and artists tended to be funded by rich patrons, who provided for them to work on art as an end in itself. They weren't materially dependent on producing lots of object to sell on the market (commodities). As this breaks down - and artists start to fund themselves through what they can sell on the open market, and even more so when images can be easily reproduced (lithos/prints, photos, digital...) the aura of the individual object is weakened and there is a pressure to produce more and more commodities for which the public have already demonsrated an appetite.

The OP speculates that in order to compensate for the historical effects of the rise of the mass art market - and the standardisation of commodities (giving the public what they want) - there is a compensatory tendency to emphasise the unique "genius" and "creativity" of the artist. And part of this romantic cult is a protest against the merely "useful" social role - so the self-destructive artist - who doesn't weigh the value of activity against the calculus of profit of loss becomes celebrated and changed our understanding of what an "artist" is and does.

And that feeds through all the way to the cult of dead rock stars.

 

[Cheesypoof]

Well, at one time an art work was a unique artefact with an aura of its own - you could only "consume" it by being physically in its presence - and artists tended to be funded by rich patrons, who provided for them to work on art as an end in itself. They weren't materially dependent on producing lots of object to sell on the market (commodities). As this breaks down - and artists start to fund themselves through what they can sell on the open market, and even more so when images can be easily reproduced (lithos/prints, photos, digital...) the aura of the individual object is weakened and there is a pressure to produce more and more commodities for which the public have already demonsrated an appetite.

The OP speculates that in order to compensate for the historical effects of the rise of the mass art market - and the standardisation of commodities (giving the public what they want) - there is a compensatory tendency to emphasise the unique "genius" and "creativity" of the artist. And part of this romantic cult is a protest against the merely "useful" social role - so the self-destructive artist - who doesn't weigh the value of activity against the calculus of profit of loss becomes celebrated and changed our understanding of what an "artist" is and does.

And that feeds through all the way to the cult of dead rock stars.

okay, thanks for the explanation and its roots as you see them. Im au fait with the Medicis and thought about that before, actually it has occured to me that the word 'patronise' probably comes from the 'patron' buts thats part of a book of English word derivatives i am writing for the past five years. Nuff on that. On your OP, well i dont think that everyone interprets modern art in the way you say, hence my original point - there is no calculation on the part of time for what makes artists self destructive. I would vouch with around 110% accuracy that there have been a % that always happened to be self destructive as it is a fundamental quality in the person and soul of the artist and never had anything to do with commodification or capitalism or social roles - its not to be analysed as its always in the soul and always was and will be. QED.

 

[articul8]

its not to be analysed as its always in the soul and always was and will be. QED.

you stick to your metaphysics - I'll ask questions about the history

 

[Santino]

God, this is painful.

 

[nino_savatte]

The notion of the 'artist' itself is a relatively recent development emerging in the Renaissance.

Yep and the whole notion of the 'tortured' artist is a myth that is sustained by cultural artifacts like Vincente Minelli's Lust For Life in which Kirk Douglas plays the troubled Vincent van Gogh.

 

[newme]

meh, lots of people are screwed up, the high profile artist ones just get noticed more.

 

[Cheesypoof]

God, this is painful.

shut up.

 

[articul8]

God, this is painful.

what insights have you added here? None.

 

[Cheesypoof]

what insights have you added here? None.

yep, he knows nothing.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Artist angst is a myth (partly).

I think Cheesey is meeting a bit of unecessary stick. The first time I heard the references was to Munch. Many people have since written about Van Gogh (in retrospect) quoting from the lives of other artists’, but his paintings don’t really convey a ‘tortured soul’ to me. Or, at least not in the way Munch’s Scream does.

Everyone, artist, or not feels down at times. It is the creative expression of an artistic mind that releases this in a way we can all relate to. The fact that we can all relate to it pretty much says it all - we all know how it feels. It’s nothing unique to artistic people.

The ‘tortured soul’ quotes often found in pieces about Van Gogh only really relate to what we know about his life - not what we see in his expressive paintings. Some of his paintings are beautifully tranquil. Same goes for Ami Winehouse. Even ‘Rehab’ was actually a rather content and jolly tune in many ways. She knew what she didn’t want at least.

Why do artists have to be seen as being ‘troubled’? Maybe the term came about as a result of technological developments. Artists were becomming redundant very quickly. If you can feed your creative habit through a commercial job, then the compromise is not a problem. Hunger, being homeless, being disregarded and denied the freedom to experiment might be seen as trouble from the outside. It doesn't have to be that way!

Van Gogh was certainly troubled. He was an alcohol addict. Was it the acohol addiction that brought about a need to be… whatever? Do alcoholic scientists suffer similar self-doubt, dillusions and need for atentión? Why do people become alcoholics?

I think the Biggest danger is that anyone who considers themselves an artist, whether financially sound, or not is offered the ‘tortured soul’ excuse for letting a habit run out of control. More cynically, there are often cases where others will profit for encouraging the habit to spiral out of control.

Worth mentioning the value of art therapy as a release also. A release as an alternative to numbing, escaping via booze and drugs possibly.

Just because people are expressing angst through any medium doesn't mean they’re anymore fucked-up than anyone else. Ami Winehouse may have died much earlier with out her musical success. Who the fuck knows? ‘Everyday’ early age suicides and overdoses don’t make the news. Perhaps she wouldn’t have either if circumstances were different and life didn’t go the way it did.