Artificial Creativity

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Durandal
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:12 am UTC

Artificial Creativity

Postby Durandal » Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:28 am UTC

.
Last edited by Durandal on Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:35 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
iop
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:26 am UTC
Location: The ivory tower

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby iop » Sun Nov 11, 2007 12:39 am UTC

If you're not creative, then taking drugs still does not make you creative, it just makes you high.

Whether the artist takes a mind-altering drug, or simply re-lives the rage of an abusive childhood, it is still the artist performing. Not someone else.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26531
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby SecondTalon » Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:10 am UTC

In my limited experience, I've never had a creative idea while intoxicated with any substance that I still found to be creative once I'd sobered up.

As for everyone else... whatever gets you going, I suppose. I don't see it as a way of cheating, I don't see it as a way of opening the creative mind or whatever, it's just a ritual. Some people have to listen to music while writing, some need complete silence while painting, others have to be baked out of their gourd to draw... I've heard* of a tattoo artist who cannot tattoo to save her life while she's sober. She has to be drinking to have any skill. Now, there's probably something there about how she's got too many inhibitions and a couple of drinks allows her to loosen up and have confidence in her abilities. In various painters or writer's cases, various hallucinations have provided inspiration for later works or the act itself becomes the art (I'm looking at you, Hunter S. Thompson!) so you could say that in some cases it is apparently necessary.

As for calling it "impure"... that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Art cannot be pure or impure, it simply is. That's like saying a rock is impure because someone once had sex on it or this pipe is impure because marijuana's been smoked in it.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Masily box
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:01 am UTC

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby Masily box » Sun Nov 11, 2007 4:36 pm UTC

Well, people argue that Beethoven was bipolar, that Ravel wrote Bolero after receiving brain damage, and Hildegard von Bingen was almost certainly inspired by migraines. If what they did was influenced by abnormal stuff going on in their brains, I don't see much that's different with composing/whatever while you're high.

Really what's at stake here is your value system and what you take art to be; what do you mean by "purity"? Art is a set of images/ideas/sounds that gets compiled somehow and is then perceived by other people (or not). Is film art? Problematic if you believe that art has to be created by a single, inspired individual. What about a photograph that someone just snapped because what they saw looked pretty: can it be artistic? (How much intentionality was involved there?) Anyway, my point is that a work of art is simply an item that other people look at with a certain set of expectations. Where is comes from matters not so much, except maybe to the people appreciating the art. To believe in some kind of purity in an artwork needs you to have some kind of Platonic or Romantic belief about what "Art" is, which necessarily means that you take some things to be true a priori-- in which case, what's "pure" or not depends entirely on what your starting assumptions are.

User avatar
HenryS
Posts: 199
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:16 am UTC
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby HenryS » Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:28 pm UTC

I thought this thread was going to be about something else, but I think that something else is a relevant discussion anyway:

Suppose I write a computer program to generate art. Suppose it uses some emergent stuff, so that I really, truly, have no idea what things that it will put out. This seems to be a much clearer case of the human not actually creating the artwork, but rather the "inanimate" thing doing the work.

I'd be interested to hear what your friend thinks of the "purity" of such artwork.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:38 pm UTC

I dunno, a friend of mine who is normally exceedingly smart but not terribly CREATIVE becomes quite a skilled artist with ink and paper when he's tripping on acid. As for marijuana, it doesn't so much make you more creative as help you completely ignore distractions and focus (for a certain definition of focus).

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby zenten » Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:09 pm UTC

Most people in the art community use drugs, including the recluses. That suggests to me that at least some drugs might increase creativity (I have trouble seeing alcohol or caffeine doing so).

That doesn't mean of course that it is the right course of action, as there are good artists out there that don't use any sort of drugs.

User avatar
Ari
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:09 pm UTC
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby Ari » Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:19 pm UTC

Durandal wrote:This stems from a recent discussion I had with one of my friends, over the use of LSD/marijuana to stimulate creativity. Ignoring the medical side-effects of taking them (both are quite mild in terms of repercussive effects as compared with other mind-altering substances), is it moral to use either or both as a 'creativity aid' in order to come up with alternate solutions to a difficult problem, or find inspiration for a work of art? Note that this is a moral question - it does not pertain to law, and so any questionable means of acquiring these substances is not part of the discussion.

My friend is of the opinion that in using these, the art form becomes 'impure', due to the fact that it is not actually the artist him/herself at work, but the mind-altering substance.

I myself am of the alternate opinion, which is that it is morally acceptable. It does not make the art form impure, since it is still the artist creating the work - the substances merely 'free' the artist's mind from the distractions of society and allow it to create connections not previously attainable. If the work may benefit humanity (and yes, art falls into my definition of benefiting humanity), why should they not? Why would they limit themselves from reaching their ultimate potential?

My friend's argument in turn was that artistic genii such as Beethoven did not need such substances in order to complete their works. But are not most notable genii in history eccentric or even insane to some degree? Perhaps their mind was already freed. And we aren't necessarily talking about a genius using creative aids, but more of a regular person that could be exceptional.

Thoughts?


Life is a mind-altering factor.

Attempting to be creative in a vacuum is like trying to write a paper without an education. A lot of high-quality creative works have been a result of factors that heavily affected the feelings and perceptions the artist had about life.

If we're ignoring the other issues with drugs, then I don't think they're really objectionable of themselves in the creative process.
"Hey %*&^er, offensive communication works fine so long as you do it respectfully." :D
"I am so quoting that out of context at a later date."

Coffee Sex Pancake
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:45 pm UTC
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby Coffee Sex Pancake » Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:28 pm UTC

Mind altering drugs have an accepted place in art history. Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Hector Berlioz imediately leap to mind.

User avatar
Eleyras
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:56 am UTC
Location: the computer lab

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby Eleyras » Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:48 pm UTC

zenten wrote:Most people in the art community use drugs, including the recluses. That suggests to me that at least some drugs might increase creativity (I have trouble seeing alcohol or caffeine doing so).

That doesn't mean of course that it is the right course of action, as there are good artists out there that don't use any sort of drugs.
I would beg to differ on caffiene. IF I actually get high on it (instead of just being not tired), it gives me an energy and restlessness that easily transfers to whatever I'm drawing/painting, giving me some lovely images, usually of the more abstract or black and white sort. While I no longer have patience for meticulous shading, I'm happy and bouncy and that shows.

Then again, caffiene's likely to be the only drug I use, as the side effects and risks of the illegal ones (including getting caught with them) don't really seem worth it.
At some point, I will remember to sig quotes I find amusing or something.

...once I stop laughing.

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby zenten » Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:18 pm UTC

Eleyras wrote:
zenten wrote:Most people in the art community use drugs, including the recluses. That suggests to me that at least some drugs might increase creativity (I have trouble seeing alcohol or caffeine doing so).

That doesn't mean of course that it is the right course of action, as there are good artists out there that don't use any sort of drugs.
I would beg to differ on caffiene. IF I actually get high on it (instead of just being not tired), it gives me an energy and restlessness that easily transfers to whatever I'm drawing/painting, giving me some lovely images, usually of the more abstract or black and white sort. While I no longer have patience for meticulous shading, I'm happy and bouncy and that shows.

Then again, caffiene's likely to be the only drug I use, as the side effects and risks of the illegal ones (including getting caught with them) don't really seem worth it.


That's not a change in creativity though, just a way to create more art. An increase in quantity, with no real effect on quality.

User avatar
pKp
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:17 pm UTC

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby pKp » Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:37 pm UTC

What does morale have to do with art in the first place ?
Experience is a thing you can't have for nothing - Oscar wilde

Walka
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:04 pm UTC

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby Walka » Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:52 am UTC

As I'm falling asleep I usually find myself thinking of creative ways of doings things, or coming up with ideas I hadn't thought of during my day. I'm of the opinion that this state of mind helps induce creativity, so can my ideas formulated during this state of mind still be called my own?
I don't see why not, and I think the same applies to the state of mind you're in when you take drugs. Your ideas are still your own, regardless of the state of mind you were in when you had them.

User avatar
olver
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:04 am UTC

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby olver » Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:37 am UTC

I'm of the opinion that most art has its basis in the emotional life of the artist. drugs can have an impact on emotions, either heightening or deadening them. this will naturally have an impact on an artist's output. so you could say that artists who are regular drug users will have a different artistic output than they might have if they were clean.

as to whether it is 'moral' to do so....I'm confused as to how this question has even arisen. Isn't it just baseless snobbery to only enjoy the work of 'pure' artists? Wouldn't that be the same as saying you only enjoy paintings by blonde people?

zenten wrote:Most people in the art community use drugs, including the recluses. That suggests to me that at least some drugs might increase creativity (I have trouble seeing alcohol or caffeine doing so).

That doesn't mean of course that it is the right course of action, as there are good artists out there that don't use any sort of drugs.

I'd be interested in seeing some statistics to back that claim up. Even if most artists did use drugs, it could mean that having an artistic mentality makes you more susceptible to drug abuse, rather than the other way around.

User avatar
tiny
Posts: 771
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:34 pm UTC
Location: Below the fifth cellar.
Contact:

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby tiny » Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:46 pm UTC

Personally I see myself as an extraordinarily creative person. On most days I can produce ideas on command.
Aside from prescribed anti depressants I don't do any drugs, not even caffeine, and I would never use them to enhance my creativity.
If I have a writer's block or can't find a solution for a problem in a story, I tell my best friend (a writer as well) about it and she tries to inspire me or give me some of her ideas. I think, that's what the artist's community is for. To be a muse for each other when you need one.

Personally I think drugs are ok to get inspired. I use all kinds of slightly mind altering methods to get inspired - I listen to music, watch a certain film, daydream etc. - and a drug is only a more radical means.
I think the artwork itself should be produced in a sober state of mind, though, with only the idea clinging to it and causing mental labour pains. This is my opinion because I think that every form of art is a craft, too, and to put your ideas in an appropriate form, you need all your skills.
If a person is only skilled when on drugs (as in Mighty Jalapeno's example) they should work on getting control of it and not keep depending on a substance.

So to me it's not so much a question of morality, but more one of artistic honour. You should be able to control your creativity with as little help as possible, to be as much of an independent artist as you can be.
"I write what I see, the endless procession to the guillotine." ~ de Sade

zenten
Posts: 3799
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:42 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby zenten » Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:58 pm UTC

olver wrote:
zenten wrote:Most people in the art community use drugs, including the recluses. That suggests to me that at least some drugs might increase creativity (I have trouble seeing alcohol or caffeine doing so).

That doesn't mean of course that it is the right course of action, as there are good artists out there that don't use any sort of drugs.

I'd be interested in seeing some statistics to back that claim up. Even if most artists did use drugs, it could mean that having an artistic mentality makes you more susceptible to drug abuse, rather than the other way around.


When did I say anything about drug abuse?

And no, I don't have statistics for this. I do have many professors in various BFA programs chatting with their students about the effects of various drugs however. Or at least this is what people with said BFAs tell me.

JoshuaZ
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:18 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby JoshuaZ » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:48 am UTC

zenten wrote:Most people in the art community use drugs, including the recluses. That suggests to me that at least some drugs might increase creativity (I have trouble seeing alcohol or caffeine doing so).


There is a correlation vs. causation issue- it might well be that there is something that is making artists more likely to use drugs (such as the general artistic culture).

User avatar
rxninja
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:16 am UTC

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby rxninja » Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:10 pm UTC

Ari wrote: Life is a mind-altering factor.


This. There are so many factors in the world that change the way you think, act, and express yourself. To say that it's immoral to use drugs when creating something is like saying that authors in repressed societies have an unfair advantage when creating fiction. A great many factors exist external to oneself that influence one's works.

It sounds like the OP's friend is inadvertently saying that nurture influences are immoral, or at least the ones that he picks and chooses (ie: drugs) are immoral. This is a groundless argument, because I could arbitrarily pick and choose any nurture influence and say it's immoral with just as much logical strength (ie: You eat carrots whenever you work, so carrots are affecting your creative process and that's immoral because I say so).

My first three or four writing sessions for Nanowrimo were fueled by a small amount of alcohol. Does that make my writing process impure? No. All of the ideas come from me, not the substance. It's not like I can pour alcohol in a keyboard and get a book...although that would be pretty awesome.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I miss a lot of people, too. Fortunately, ammo is cheap.

sophyturtle wrote:I think nudity is the solution for everything...

User avatar
a386
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 5:07 pm UTC
Location: sailing the seas
Contact:

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby a386 » Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:02 am UTC

rxninja wrote: It's not like I can pour alcohol in a keyboard and get a book...

exactly. the substance can't create, it's not adding anything to the artist's mind except an experience. the OP's friend says that the substance is the thing at work but it can't be, it's not like by drawing while high an artist is stealing ideas from marijuana.
the drug "trip" is an experience just like anything else is, and by creating something during that time i think an artist can kind of encapsulate what it feels like. Creating something even if one's technical skills aren't up to par is worth it i think then, because of the unique opportunity to draw on that particular feeling. i think being under an influence lets the user interpret and react to the world a different way, and feel maybe differently about something as compared to how they would react to it sober. in that sense it has the same kind of effect as a long stretch of time would: myself from five years ago and myself today would have two totally different opinions of the same song. my high self might have a different opinion of it, too. those different reactions give more material for an artist to paint about, too.

As for "freeing the mind"? that's an interesting angle. op, what do you mean by "creating connections," just seeing things a different way?

User avatar
pKp
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:17 pm UTC

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby pKp » Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:36 pm UTC

Well, from my experience with them, psychedelic drugs (LSD and the like) alter your pattern-recognition abilities, leading you to perceive emergent information wich isn't really here (hear music in static noise, make a detailed map of an imaginary country out of your ceiling, see letters and drawings in fire or water, etc).
It is a real break from reality, and as such, can in my opinion be interesting for a creator. But so is every out-of-the-norm experience - you don't have to endanger your health for it :D
Experience is a thing you can't have for nothing - Oscar wilde

User avatar
Eitel
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:55 am UTC

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby Eitel » Mon Nov 19, 2007 2:22 am UTC

Most times that I've taken LSD I'd have an urge to draw, but most of what I end up drawing doesn't look good in the morning. Its a bit more effective for writing non-prose pieces, but I definitely agree that it wont make you creative. To me its simply a type of inspiration, and it definitely comes through in what your doing, but it doesn't possess you, and as much as I might like, I don't think I can become John Lennon by taking it.
Image

User avatar
Chase Watkins
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:58 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby Chase Watkins » Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:00 am UTC

Sorry, this isn't exactly to the initial question, but I find the illegalization of marijuana in the US kind of disobeys the initial foundation we were built around. Religion is essentially how you perceive the world, so if you perceive that marijuna is a good thing, shouldn't you have the right to believe that and therefore act upon that? Mind ou, I have never tried any drugs in my life and do not havve a strong intent to soon. I'd say more but I need some rest, I just wanted to throw my perspective out there before hitting the sack. G'night all.

User avatar
a386
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 5:07 pm UTC
Location: sailing the seas
Contact:

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby a386 » Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:02 pm UTC

pKp wrote:Well, from my experience with them, psychedelic drugs (LSD and the like) alter your pattern-recognition abilities, leading you to perceive emergent information wich isn't really here (hear music in static noise, make a detailed map of an imaginary country out of your ceiling, see letters and drawings in fire or water, etc).
It is a real break from reality, and as such, can in my opinion be interesting for a creator. But so is every out-of-the-norm experience - you don't have to endanger your health for it :D


i totally agree, its not at all .. necessary. but it's still just another experience. pattern recognition? cool, i could see that being creative in a roundabout way. like .. if you think you see something but it's not there, if you think there's music in white noise, then the music really must have in some fashion come from you.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby aleflamedyud » Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:13 am UTC

I don't know about illegal stuff, but I've heard that anyone with a talent for writing should avoid writing while intoxicated on alcohol -- because of the long history of genius writers who also suffered from alcoholism.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Durandal
Posts: 659
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:12 am UTC

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby Durandal » Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:22 pm UTC

.
Last edited by Durandal on Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:36 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
a386
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 5:07 pm UTC
Location: sailing the seas
Contact:

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby a386 » Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:14 am UTC

Durandal wrote:This actually stems from a loose kind of theory I've formulated as to how creativity works... basically, it is not the spontaneous generation of an idea, but the connection between two ideas/details already in place but never before associated with each other.

So, taking such mind-altering substances would be a loose equivalent of having someone else look at the problem and provide insight. By altering your perception of reality, things that may have seemed unimportant before become important, and their associated ideas that would have otherwise garnered no recognition become critical.

cool. i wonder, does the drug kind of make you a different person then? and how much of that lingers after you've done it .. like since you've seen that connection and that stays with you, once the trip ends you're still altered kinda. the way you'd be altered after i guess any sort of experience that makes you see things differently. do you think it's worth it to attempt creating while you're high then, so you can draw from the new perspective you'll probably lose? or do you retain enough of it to hold off until you're sober and your technical skills have returned .. i guess it's situational. i personally can't get enough of talking to people or writing things down or making crude drawings while high because of so many new ideas in my head .. those could easily be some new connections and perspectives. i never tried really making a finished product though.

User avatar
pKp
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:17 pm UTC

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby pKp » Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:04 am UTC

a386 wrote:
pKp wrote:Well, from my experience with them, psychedelic drugs (LSD and the like) alter your pattern-recognition abilities, leading you to perceive emergent information wich isn't really here (hear music in static noise, make a detailed map of an imaginary country out of your ceiling, see letters and drawings in fire or water, etc).
It is a real break from reality, and as such, can in my opinion be interesting for a creator. But so is every out-of-the-norm experience - you don't have to endanger your health for it :D


i totally agree, its not at all .. necessary. but it's still just another experience. pattern recognition? cool, i could see that being creative in a roundabout way. like .. if you think you see something but it's not there, if you think there's music in white noise, then the music really must have in some fashion come from you.

Yeah, it also happens to me when I'm very tired. Generally it sounds like the musical genre I'm listening at the moment, but it's never any particular song. Can't seem to remember them after the fact though.
The problem with pattern recognition is seeing Cthulu getting out of the river you're crossing at three in the morning. That's why LSD is bad if you already have psychological issues :/
Experience is a thing you can't have for nothing - Oscar wilde

User avatar
goedjn4
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Rhode Island
Contact:

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby goedjn4 » Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:44 pm UTC

It seems to me that you can only answer a question about whether it's
correct behavior to do X in order to accomplish Y if you know why you're
trying to do Y, and what Y is in the first place.

So... assuming you're contemplating taking drugs to enhance your
creativity, there's two questions: (1) Will it work? and (2)
why are you trying to be more creative?

If, for instance you're trying to be creative because you need a solution
to a problem that's going to end the world, AND that taking drugs actually
works, I'd say go for it. I suspect though, that beyond the little bit useful
to suppress one's inhibitions, drug use is likely to produce more randomness
than creativity. And IMNSHO, randomness is generally lousy art. That's
not a moral judgment though, it's an esthetic one. If you're trying to
use drugs to make yourself more creative because you think being seen as
creative will help you impress girls, (or boys, or whatever) or to win an
art competition, (which is ultimately the same thing) then I s'pose you could
plausibly be accused of cheating.

OTOH, When I'm trying to write a song and been stuck for an idea,
I've occasionally resorted to rolling dice to generate a motive, and
then working from there.

On the gripping hand, I consider my self more of a craftsman than an
artist, so 'cheating' doesn't bother me, as long as I like the result.

--Goedjn

krunzi
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 10:42 am UTC

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby krunzi » Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:07 pm UTC

On one hand, i can follow your friend. If you NEED some sort of mind-altering substance in order to be creative, then it seems sort of fake, like "i can only bike up a mountain if i take epo", sure, it's a feat you biked up a mountain, but the impressiveness of it sort of looses its edge.
On the other hand, if you get inspiration and make things that other people like, then it'd be bad to tell you not to.

I'm not exactly an artist, but i've never had a creative thought while high or drunk, and i havn't dared with harder drugs since just weed and alcohol usually makes me more or less mentally unstable, a side-effect i'm not that fond of :P

Netrilix
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:54 am UTC

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby Netrilix » Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:17 am UTC

krunzi wrote:On one hand, i can follow your friend. If you NEED some sort of mind-altering substance in order to be creative, then it seems sort of fake, like "i can only bike up a mountain if i take epo"

I beg to differ. Art is a creative pursuit, while mountain biking is a directly competitive sport (someone will be attempting to break your mountain record, or race you up the mountain). I don't think it's fair to compare something innumerable with something that you can measure with a stopwatch. Personally, I don't care which method an artist uses, as long as the final product is appealing or interesting to someone (obviously barring theft of someone else's work). I also agree with those of you who said that drugs like LSD simply add an experience to create art about. I don't believe that LSD directly helps someone create a piece of art, but it may remove some inhibitions and mental blocks.

User avatar
errrr
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:18 pm UTC
Location: Swimming in a fish bowl, year after year

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby errrr » Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:08 pm UTC

A summary of some interesting research:
'Psilocybin's effects on cognition: Recent research and its implications for enhancing creativity'

Essentially, psilocybin (which is pretty similar to LSD except for duration) seems to increase the "search radius" for associations:

Spitzer's group orally administered 0.2 mg/kg body weight of psilocybin to eight male volunteers in a double-blind, placebo-controlled experiment. They then studied the effects of psilocybin in a word-recognition task. In this task, subjects identify whether a string of characters is a word or not. Past research has found that subjects can identify a word faster if the previous string of characters is a closely related word. For example, subjects can recognize the word "black" more quickly if it has been immediately preceeded by the word "white." This effect is known as semantic priming. In normal subjects, semantic priming occurs only with closely related words. However, indirectly related words ("sweet" and "lemon," for example) produce semantic priming in thought-disordered schizophrenic subjects (Spitzer et al 1993a, 1993b).

Semantic priming

The researchers found that psilocybin slowed the subjects' reaction times while at the same time producing a semantic priming effect for indirectly related words ("sweet" and "lemon"), similar to that seen in the schizophrenia research. The finding that psilocybin slowed reaction times was not unexpected; past research with psychedelics has found the same effect. However, the finding that psilocybin produced indirect semantic priming is more interesting. In their discussion, the researchers point out that their findings are relevant to claims that psychedelics "enhance creativity" or "broaden consciousness":

Although most objective measures have failed to support these claims, our data suggest that the [hallucinogenic] agent in fact leads to an increased availability of remote associations and thereby may bring cognitive contents to mind that under normal circumstances remain nonactivated; however, the generally decreased psychological performance under hallucinogenic agents suggest that the increased indirect priming effect is due to a decreased capacity to use contextual information for the focusing of semantic processing. Hence, subjectively experienced increases in creativity as well as the broadening of consciousness have been found to parallel decreases in objective performance measures (p. 1056-1057).


Thus, the researchers suggest that psychedelics may in fact "broaden consciousness" by making remote mental associations more available. However, this involves a trade-off. Although remote mental associations are more available, subjects are less able to focus, which slows their reaction times.


(I think I should mention here that these drugs do have risks. But if you're using my postings for anything important, you're insane anyway ;))

About the moral question, I agree with the previous posters that your friend is arbitrarily prohibiting one of the many tools and influences that affect us; I would also say that the whole idea is "ego-istical" (literally) anyway.
"The Internet being what it is, absolutely anything might show up in the collage including -- quite possibly -- pornography, or even nudity." (xscreensaver/webcollage docs)

User avatar
Pai
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:27 pm UTC
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby Pai » Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:06 am UTC

I read the title and immediately thought of David Cope's EMI.

But that's a different kind of 'artificial creativity'. =P
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." ~Voltaire

LikwidCirkel
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:56 pm UTC
Location: on this forum (duh)
Contact:

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby LikwidCirkel » Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:44 pm UTC

I've come to believe that the boost in creativity for some people happens more indirectly. Many of us can agree that music sounds better while in an altered state, and that is the root of the idea. I've played in several bands in the past, and dabbled in many different genres of music, both straight and under the influence.

I used to think that it made me more creative, but not any more.

What happens, is that since the music sounds better, it produces the illusion that you're creating or performing better, and you might become more impressed with yourself. In turn, this boosts confidence, and may lower self-consciousness and inhibitions, allowing the creating process to flow more readily.

For the person who is already very confident, and free of inhibitions, substances are probably less likely to make them perform better, although they might still make the performing experience more enjoyable.

There are many alternative routes to achieve the same effect.

optionalredmark
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:06 pm UTC

Re: Artificial Creativity

Postby optionalredmark » Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:40 pm UTC

OP -

Tell your friend to try this out:

Day 1)
Run three miles, then jump in an olympic pool, swim three laps, then jump out. Stand in front of your canvas and begin your art.

Day 2)
Don't get out of bed, order pizzas and eat constantly all day while reruns of Jerry Spring run on a large screen TV. After 12 hours of this, get in front of your canvas and begin your art.

Day 3)
Go to a meadow an hour away from any civilization. Sit by a tree and watch the water for 12 hours, then pull out your canvas and begin your art.

Day 4)
Stand in the middle of a city, and watch. After 12 hours, pull out a canvas and begin your art.

- Even if done in the most methodical of mannerisms, each individual piece of art will be unique, filled with the energy of the surrounding area. Artists are capable of grabbing the essence of an element or of many elements and translating them to a medium which is capable of sensory perception by others. Art, as defined to be an object of our capability as a humans: does not have 'purity' as a property. The human element can be pure, and art can capture that purity - but art is influenced by every part of the artist.

In fact, to that extent, I could argue that MJ is a strong tool to teach an artist to overcome themselves. Someone that creates in a city could fight all day to find simplicity - and someone in the country all year to find complexity: they both, however, are capable of using MJ and then fighting to maintain (or change!) their creative process as a side step to their current methods. In other words, the influence of MJ creates a different feeling for the artist, allowing them to view a difference in their methods. This gives a chance for growth.

An artist that can capture a scene. The "influences" that are possible are just that, influences. A good artist knows how to add them and remove them as they please.

/imo


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests