There is a mythical idea, that I and many bought into, that creatives need to be drug-addled and drink-soaked to be creative. It begs the question that if drugs and drink were not available, would they / i not then be creative? WHO and WHAT then is the creative force: the self, or the drugs? Indeed, if it is the drink that makes us creative, that accesses our creative "juices" then perhaps we are all creative geniuses, all Mozarts and Picassos, if only we have a bottle of vodka to access that creativity.
Now, drink can access parts of our modes of thinking and feeling quicker, in a more direct way than being sober may do. Yet those thoughts and feelings are there anyway. As one who used to imbibe every night and would have a pen and pad on perma-fix to my right wrist (along with a glass of red and a rolly) I thought i could embody and one day be the creative genius.
Bullshit.
Question: Do you graft inspiration, or do you await inspiration?
Those who await, often with drink and drugs to "fuel" them feel the need for the emotional "surge" that drugs can given them to assist them in their writing and painting and music making and performing.
Those who graft understand that genius is not something that necessarily just spouts forth as easy and fluid as tea from a tea pot. They need to work. Graft. Be disciplined, focussed and ready to put in the hours, days, weeks, months of hard, and often lonely, fucking graft.
Michael Mara. I had the pleasure of working with this genius a few years back. A non-drinker, he had a small studio by his home that he'd go to everyday, Monday to Friday 9 - 5. And write songs, music. He spoke about it as a discipline such as going to work. Often he'd have to drag himself there. Often days would be boring, uninspired and just plain hard. But he grafted. It was his profession and passion and he worked at it. And he was successful. In Scotland at least, he has become know as one of the great singer-songwriters of the 20th Century.
Will Self. I listened to him on Radio 4 earlier in the week speaking about the discipline he has towards his writing. It actually made me (as someone who enjoys writing and words) sit up and think about what it takes to be a successful writer - and by successful i do not automatically mean acclaimed or famous. I mean that one has successfully forged a way to make ends meet with their daily hours of practice of writing. Hours. 9-5. He speaks about it here: BBC Radio 4 - The Sins of Literature, Thou Shalt Not Hide
Tom Waits, whom I am a big fan of, and who's song The Piano Has Been Drinking was long a favourite of mine, is now a very merry sober man. And though he wrote much of his best music in his non-sober years, it is anyone's guess how much - if any - of that was written under the infuence of drink and drugs, or how much was written on reflection of experiences (this goes for any writer who likes to dabble), that is, how much was written sober in times of quiet away from the Dionysian debauchery.
Daniel Day Lewis. No idea whether Day-Lewis is a drug-addled actor or not, but i would wager a heavy bet that he's not. Here's a grafter - utter and total dedication to a craft.
Who else? It's easy, many of the great artists and creative minds are those who got up each day and did their job. Their graft. And 99.9% of the time their days were much of a muchness, filled with the same joy, frustration, love, sadness, unexpectedness and routine as yours or mine. But they worked. They had a passion, a belief and they worked.
I am fortunate enough to know quite a few artists, actors, writers, painters and provocateurs. And though most of them drink and few enjoy other mind-altering substances, these are imbibed NOT to aid and support their creative work, but, like the majority of the population, imbibed as a social lubricant, something shared during times of leisure - as opposed to a daily practice.
Of course there are those great geniuses who have made drink and drugs part of their artistry. Francis Bacon, Jack Kerouac, Charles Bukowski. But there are two sides to this coin. Who might Francis, Jack and Charles been if they had grafted more when sober? Indeed, how much of even my mentioning them here in this context is simply fueling a media written concept of who these people were?
Jim Morrison, River Pheonix, Amy Winehouse, Janis Joplin all imbibed, shot, snorted, necked with it all ending up in one place. Six feet under. The tyranny of experience can be masked by drink and drugs, but the ability to articulate, share, process, work it and overcome the tyranny of a living experience is perhaps, arguably, of much more worth not only to the individual but to the wider world.
Hunter S Thomson showed how a creative genius can become a buffoon when lost to over-imbibing.
We attribute drink with the arts and artists as if they were wine and cheese, but actually, when the greatest artists have gone to their studio to work, it is not with a bottle of proseco on the side counter but with an idea. Or more often even, simply with a dedication and focus that today they must APPLY themselves, and let whatever creativity comes forth - good, bad or indifferent - be.
Now, drink can access parts of our modes of thinking and feeling quicker, in a more direct way than being sober may do. Yet those thoughts and feelings are there anyway. As one who used to imbibe every night and would have a pen and pad on perma-fix to my right wrist (along with a glass of red and a rolly) I thought i could embody and one day be the creative genius.
Bullshit.
Question: Do you graft inspiration, or do you await inspiration?
Those who await, often with drink and drugs to "fuel" them feel the need for the emotional "surge" that drugs can given them to assist them in their writing and painting and music making and performing.
Those who graft understand that genius is not something that necessarily just spouts forth as easy and fluid as tea from a tea pot. They need to work. Graft. Be disciplined, focussed and ready to put in the hours, days, weeks, months of hard, and often lonely, fucking graft.
Michael Mara. I had the pleasure of working with this genius a few years back. A non-drinker, he had a small studio by his home that he'd go to everyday, Monday to Friday 9 - 5. And write songs, music. He spoke about it as a discipline such as going to work. Often he'd have to drag himself there. Often days would be boring, uninspired and just plain hard. But he grafted. It was his profession and passion and he worked at it. And he was successful. In Scotland at least, he has become know as one of the great singer-songwriters of the 20th Century.
Will Self. I listened to him on Radio 4 earlier in the week speaking about the discipline he has towards his writing. It actually made me (as someone who enjoys writing and words) sit up and think about what it takes to be a successful writer - and by successful i do not automatically mean acclaimed or famous. I mean that one has successfully forged a way to make ends meet with their daily hours of practice of writing. Hours. 9-5. He speaks about it here: BBC Radio 4 - The Sins of Literature, Thou Shalt Not Hide
Tom Waits, whom I am a big fan of, and who's song The Piano Has Been Drinking was long a favourite of mine, is now a very merry sober man. And though he wrote much of his best music in his non-sober years, it is anyone's guess how much - if any - of that was written under the infuence of drink and drugs, or how much was written on reflection of experiences (this goes for any writer who likes to dabble), that is, how much was written sober in times of quiet away from the Dionysian debauchery.
Daniel Day Lewis. No idea whether Day-Lewis is a drug-addled actor or not, but i would wager a heavy bet that he's not. Here's a grafter - utter and total dedication to a craft.
Who else? It's easy, many of the great artists and creative minds are those who got up each day and did their job. Their graft. And 99.9% of the time their days were much of a muchness, filled with the same joy, frustration, love, sadness, unexpectedness and routine as yours or mine. But they worked. They had a passion, a belief and they worked.
I am fortunate enough to know quite a few artists, actors, writers, painters and provocateurs. And though most of them drink and few enjoy other mind-altering substances, these are imbibed NOT to aid and support their creative work, but, like the majority of the population, imbibed as a social lubricant, something shared during times of leisure - as opposed to a daily practice.
Of course there are those great geniuses who have made drink and drugs part of their artistry. Francis Bacon, Jack Kerouac, Charles Bukowski. But there are two sides to this coin. Who might Francis, Jack and Charles been if they had grafted more when sober? Indeed, how much of even my mentioning them here in this context is simply fueling a media written concept of who these people were?
Jim Morrison, River Pheonix, Amy Winehouse, Janis Joplin all imbibed, shot, snorted, necked with it all ending up in one place. Six feet under. The tyranny of experience can be masked by drink and drugs, but the ability to articulate, share, process, work it and overcome the tyranny of a living experience is perhaps, arguably, of much more worth not only to the individual but to the wider world.
Hunter S Thomson showed how a creative genius can become a buffoon when lost to over-imbibing.
We attribute drink with the arts and artists as if they were wine and cheese, but actually, when the greatest artists have gone to their studio to work, it is not with a bottle of proseco on the side counter but with an idea. Or more often even, simply with a dedication and focus that today they must APPLY themselves, and let whatever creativity comes forth - good, bad or indifferent - be.
Comment