DRUGS & BOOZE

[aborgman]

@aborgman - I get your points but don't think it's quite as cut and dried as you seem to frame it. I don't think that you can effectively say that mind-altering substances can do anything other than alter the mind. They cannot create anything nor can they make a person create anything.

They cannot create anything, but they certainly can make a person create something.

Altering the mind can cause people to do things they wouldn't otherwise do - including create things.

Just think about the number of things that some tired/lazy ass would never have done were it not for some meth!

No, it's quite easy to argue that point. They were artists before and after the acid tests. The subject matter they chose to focus on was influenced by the acid tests. The drugs didn't make them artists but they definitely inspired and influenced their art.

...but did it make them "great"?

Lots and lots of people are "artists". Some of them are great.

Some of them are decidedly not great for large parts of their career - and then because of some outside impetus (wife, drug, change of scenery, whatever) do great work.

You don't gain the talent to be great from drugs, or booze, or women...

...but you might gain an inspiration you would never have had without it... and that inspiration might lead to the only work you do that is "great".

No one can say they wouldn't have created long-form, improvisational jams if LSD never existed.

Right... and I can say that while they were artists as a bluegrass band, they weren't great until long-form, improvisational jams.

There are plenty of examples of artists who created art about stuff that didn't exist and was the sole invention of the artist's imagination just as there are examples of art created about very real things. Saying drugs or booze can make an artist make art is like saying a tree can make an artist make art.

A tree CAN make an artist make art.

SO can a rainbow, or a pretty song, or a beautiful sunset, or a kiss from the woman he loves...

Saying an artists cannot create art about drugs or booze or a drug/booze experience is like saying an artist cannot create art about a tree without seeing or experiencing a tree.

I would argue that an artists cannot create HONEST art about a tree without seeing or experiencing a tree.


Artists can create art with or without any number of outside influences.

The art maybe better, or worse due to those influences.

...but a certain artists may be inspired to greatness by anything - including drugs - and without that inspiration their is no guarantee (no matter how much an artist they may be) that something else WILL inspire them to equivalent levels of excellence.

 

[tZer]

aborgman - we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Drugs and booze can no more make art or make a person make art than your left shoe.

Great, honest, or whether the pre-LDS Dead's music was better/worse/more/less artistic than post-LSD Dead's music is nothing more than your opinion. There are millions who'd disagree vehemently with your assessment and say that the post-LSD Dead's material was mindless, meaningless and utterly self-indulgent noodling and that the pure nature of the jug band music they used to play was true, pure, honest and great art.

 

[aborgman]

aborgman - we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Drugs and booze can no more make art or make a person make art than your left shoe.

My left shoe could make someone make art - if they were inspired by it.

ANYTHING can make an artist make art.

Inspiration can come from anywhere.

Great, honest, or whether the pre-LDS Dead's music was better/worse/more/less artistic than post-LSD Dead's music is nothing more than your opinion. There are millions who'd disagree vehemently with your assessment and say that the post-LSD Dead's material was mindless, meaningless and utterly self-indulgent noodling and that the pure nature of the jug band music they used to play was true, pure, honest and great art.

...but of course - everything about art is subjective.

 

[tZer]

My left shoe could make someone make art - if they were inspired by it.

ANYTHING can make an artist make art.

Inspiration can come from anywhere.

...but of course - everything about art is subjective.

Everything about whether or not art is 'great' or 'honest' is subjective. Whether it exists or how it's made is not. A sculptor makes a sculpture - nothing subjective about that. It's art because it's the product of human creativity - not subjective.

Whether it's good, honest, interesting, etc... all of those aspect of evaluating art are subjective, but art is not.

The only thing shoes, drugs, booze, all things in life in general can do for an artist is provide inspiration. Unless that shoe picks up a gun and threatens the artist, it cannot make him do anything. Inspire? - yes. Make? - no. Can the artist make art independent of the shoe? yes. Can the shoe make art independent of the artist? - no.

If the artist does not want to make the art even if he's inspired by the shoe, the shoe cannot force him to do so. It cannot make him do anything.

 

[aborgman]

Everything about whether or not art is 'great' or 'honest' is subjective. Whether it exists or how it's made is not. A sculptor makes a sculpture - nothing subjective about that. It's art because it's the product of human creativity - not subjective.

Whether it's good, honest, interesting, etc... all of those aspect of evaluating art are subjective, but art is not.

Whether it exists IS a subjective question - because not every creation is art. Whether something is even art or not is itself a subjective question.

The only thing shoes, drugs, booze, all things in life in general can do for an artist is provide inspiration. Unless that shoe picks up a gun and threatens the artist, it cannot make him do anything.

Inspiration can MAKE people do things.

...and people never get made to do anything by hallucinations?

Inspire? - yes. Make? - no. Can the artist make art independent of the shoe? yes.

Maybe yes, maybe no. That is a subjective question.

Can the shoe make art independent of the artist? - no.

Inspiration (whatever its source) is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the creation of art.

If the artist does not want to make the art even if he's inspired by the shoe, the shoe cannot force him to do so. It cannot make him do anything.

If he doesn't want to make the art, he isn't inspired.

Inspiration: arousal of the mind to special unusual activity or creativity.

 

[bassike]

My drummer and guitar player smoke a lot of pot;
The drummer plays better. And the guitar player plays the same with or without it.
I tried one time and I couldn`t play at all so I’ll never do it again.

I would talk to them and if they do not what to be professional, then I guess it`s time to get new members

 

[tZer]

Truce - I cannot go on.

 

[JDJen]

I once played with a band where the drummer and singer got hammered on Friday night and the guitar player joined in with them on Saturday. ONCE that is. I don't have anything against drinking but the singer couldn't remember her lyrics, guitar player was starting songs in the wrong key, and the drummer fell off his seat. They were too drunk to load out and the bar owner said we could come back on Sunday and take care of it. I loaded up my combo, got paid, never looked back.

The funny thing was none of them drank at rehearsals, and were preaching about how they MIGHT have 1 drink a set. I guess when you start the night off with a Triple Rum and Coke it's still only 1 drink.

 

[dalconthenovice]

my band is very laid back and we actually smoke and drink occassionally at rehearsals, but we NEEEEVERRR smoke and drink during gigs, personally i find that irresponsible, half of our rehearsals are work, half is just fun relaxed music making, those rehearsals we will bust out the drinks and joints, but never gigs, its our time to work and make music, not drunken noodling, which is what we do at those times anyways, noodle for hours, occassionaly a song comes out