What do you think of artists with

[Kyriakos]

...a positive view of life?
In the past most artists that became famous were problematic personalities, miserable, misanthropic, half-mad, drunkards etc. Poe, Baudelaire, De Quincey, Kafka, Dostoevsky, and others like them, present a gloomy view of the world, yet all are well-known today. On the other hand i think- i am not really a fan of modern literature i must admit- that modern writers are more often more positive.
A nice rellevant quote by Kafka is that "i always thought that i should keep myself away from happyness, so that it would not bother my work, but in reality unhappyness proved to be at least an equal burden".
It is my view that a writer can be happy and good in what he does. I think that he should present both bright and dark images, but could be partial to the positive side of things. Misery of course attracts more of the younger audience, but the more mature people like to read things which can help them, or they enjoy more optimistic messages.

So the question is if you think that a writer who is happy with life can produce a valueable work, that is equal to those considered as classics. OF course this depends on the quality of the writer, but would there be something missing from the aura that is had by a more dark literary figure?

 

[aelf]

Well, the truth about reality is depressing. Since good artists should be concerned with the truth (instead of sugary make-belief), it's pretty inevitable that they would present a depressing outlook. Nonetheless, a really good work would also inspire people to see the good and act on it, working towards creating a better life.

To be a true optimist you must first acknowledge the pessimistic truth, to understand it but then to reject it.

 

[mrt144]

Well, the truth about reality is depressing. Since good artists should be concerned with the truth (instead of sugary make-belief), it's pretty inevitable that they would present a depressing outlook. Nonetheless, a really good work would also inspire people to see the good and act on it, working towards creating a better life.

To be a true optimist you must first acknowledge the pessimistic truth, to understand it but then to reject it.

So many things wrong with what you said, I don't even know where to begin.

 

[aelf]

Go ahead, but I'm far from alone in saying these.


EDIT: So are you going to reply or what? I'm sure you think that this is just some angsty opinion. I assure you, it's not, since there is a body of works spanning different fields on which I'm basing it. But I'm dying to see what wonderful truths you have that will utterly contradict what I said.

 

[Fifty]

I hate them so much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Arwon]

David Byrne is pretty awesome.

 

[warpus]

Doesn't matter to me what their view on life is - as long as their art is interesting.

 

[Newbunkle]

Life *is* pretty amazing, so it would be nice to see some positive artists. These doom and gloom types spoil things for everyone else with their moaning and pessimism.

 

[aelf]

Since some poster refuses to come forward with his priceless commentary lol, let me offer more detailed arguments on why pessimism seems to be par the course for many artists.

I think it's undeniable that much suffering is happening in the world. If one fails to acknowledge this, then one can immediately be dismissed as an idiot. Even in our own little well-off bubbles, we are not immune, since circumstance, our incessant desiring and our necessary subjectivity cause us to suffer (e.g. when we fail to get what we want, or when faced with our own set of problems we are unable to see the bigger picture and take heart).

So how does art help us? Art can simply delude us by taking our imagination to some other reality, but that doesn't last long, and eventually we'd realise that it's not good enough. Or art can tell us the truth, but subsequently remind us of the good that exists and the hope that always remains. Moreover, when art tells us the whole truth, we might see the bigger picture and hence look past our own petty problems.

This also makes sense from another point of view, where there is tension between the world as we desire it to be and the world as it is. Because of this opposition, which many of us can feel in day-to-day living, we might be moved to reject this world and hope for another. Art can offer us that other world, but that, as I said earlier, would be illusory. I don't think that its purpose. Its purpose would be to tell or remind us that we are not wrong when we feel this way, but that, at the same time, all is not lost.

That's why art and pessimism are intertwined - because true optimism can only arise after we first acknowledge the painful truth.

 

[Tee Kay]

I commend them. Being positive about life is certainly a challenge (well, at least for me).

 

[Mise]

There are loads of positive, happy and beautiful artworks...

 

[Tee Kay]

That's why art and pessimism are intertwined - because true optimism can only arise after we first acknowledge the painful truth.

Ah, but truth doesn't have to necessarily be painful.

(I'm getting better )

 

[aelf]

Ah, but truth doesn't have to necessarily be painful.

(I'm getting better )

No, but the truth is.

 

[Hygro]

relevant ted.com discussion on the subject http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/elizabeth_gilbert_on_genius.html

 

[Kerozine]

Very gay.

 

[Fifty]

Well, the truth about reality is depressing.

To some people, but not others. And its not at all clear that people ought to view it as depressing.

Since good artists should be concerned with the truth (instead of sugary make-belief),

Good artists may also be concerned with make-belief. Counterfactuals can genuinely help us understand the way things really are.

Nonetheless, a really good work would also inspire people to see the good and act on it, working towards creating a better life.

Art does not have to be inspirational to be really good. Of course, it could be inspirational and really good, but its false that it must be inspirational to be really good.

To be a true optimist you must first acknowledge the pessimistic truth, to understand it but then to reject it.

What the heck is a "true optimist"? Optimism is a demeanor. You can be an optimist for whatever reason you want and you're still a true optimist.

Go ahead, but I'm far from alone in saying these.

Indeed, lots of people have an obnoxious tendency to confuse their idiosyncratic tastes with objective aesthetic facts.

EDIT: So are you going to reply or what? I'm sure you think that this is just some angsty opinion.

Not angsty, just wrong.

there is a body of works spanning different fields on which I'm basing it.

I'm guessing this is the part where you start battering people with philosophy terms that you are using either inappropriately or incorrectly. Not gonna work on me!

But I'm dying to see what wonderful truths you have that will utterly contradict what I said.

You're not smart enough to be so snide yet.

Since some poster refuses to come forward with his priceless commentary lol

See previous comment.

I think it's undeniable that much suffering is happening in the world. If one fails to acknowledge this, then one can immediately be dismissed as an idiot. Even in our own little well-off bubbles, we are not immune, since circumstance, our incessant desiring and our necessary subjectivity cause us to suffer (e.g. when we fail to get what we want, or when faced with our own set of problems we are unable to see the bigger picture and take heart).

Of course much suffering is happening in the world. Much happiness is happening in the world too. There's also a lot of stuff happening in the world that is neither suffering nor happiness. Every piece of art need not touch on every aspect of human experience, nor does the extent to which a piece of art does so necessarily make it better than one that picks up a small chunk of experience and do something interesting with it.

So how does art help us? Art can simply delude us by taking our imagination to some other reality, but that doesn't last long, and eventually we'd realise that it's not good enough. Or art can tell us the truth, but subsequently remind us of the good that exists and the hope that always remains. Moreover, when art tells us the whole truth, we might see the bigger picture and hence look past our own petty problems.

Again, its hardly true that all or even most good art ought to beat us over the head with the bad things in life. Art can just provide us something interesting to think about, offer a puzzle, just be beautiful, make us think about counterfactual circumstances, OR offer us the truth. And when it offers us the truth, it need not consider every aspect of human experience. A fantastic piece of art could focus on the good, or it could focus on the bad, or it could do both, or it could do neither.

This also makes sense from another point of view, where there is tension between the world as we desire it to be and the world as it is. Because of this opposition, which many of us can feel in day-to-day living, we might be moved to reject this world and hope for another. Art can offer us that other world, but that, as I said earlier, would be illusory. I don't think that its purpose. Its purpose would be to tell or remind us that we are not wrong when we feel this way, but that, at the same time, all is not lost.

That's why art and pessimism are intertwined - because true optimism can only arise after we first acknowledge the painful truth.

Of course, there is a hopelessly huge gap between "art and pessimism are intertwined" and "great art ought to be pessimistic and there is something wrong with non-pessimistic art or artists." And you've made no (non-stupid) case for the view that "acknowledging the painful truth" ought to be the primary goal of art, and not just one among many things an artist may take for their subject without sacrificing greatness.

I don't want to drag this into an actual debate, just wanted to elaborate on mrt's point that your posts in this thread are in fact silly and wrong. Go run along now.

 

[aelf]

To some people, but not others. And its not at all clear that people ought to view it as depressing.

Up to you. But many people will see it that way at one point or another. And sometimes they're not prepared for it.

Good artists may also be concerned with make-belief. Counterfactuals can genuinely help us understand the way things really are.

So actually they are still concerned with the truth?

Art does not have to be inspirational to be really good. Of course, it could be inspirational and really good, but its false that it must be inspirational to be really good.

Perhaps not. But being inspirational is a pretty good criterion.

What the heck is a "true optimist"? Optimism is a demeanor. You can be an optimist for whatever reason you want and you're still a true optimist.

Well, a true optimist would be one that would still be optimistic even in the face of some terrible truths. It is hard and might be impossible in some circumstances, but a true optimist is not one who is only optimistic because he makes himself believe that everything will always be fine and dandy.

Indeed, lots of people have an obnoxious tendency to confuse their idiosyncratic tastes with objective aesthetic facts.

Tell me about it.

Not angsty, just wrong.

That's fast.

I'm guessing this is the part where you start battering people with philosophy terms that you are using either inappropriately or incorrectly. Not gonna work on me!

Did you see any terms or names? Nope. Oops, looks like you're actually wrong

You're not smart enough to be so snide yet.

And I presume you think you are.

See previous comment.

See previous comment.

Of course much suffering is happening in the world. Much happiness is happening in the world too.

Never disputed that. In fact, I specifically said that we need to see the good that exists.

Every piece of art need not touch on every aspect of human experience, nor does the extent to which a piece of art does so necessarily make it better than one that picks up a small chunk of experience and do something interesting with it.

Don't think I said anywhere that art needs to touch on every aspect of human experience. I'm only offering an explanation on why a lot of artists present a pessimistic outlook. Well, being human we're of course concerned with our afflictions, and one of the things we seek solace in is art. Being made to face your demons and then have them exorcised is generally considered therapeutic.

Again, its hardly true that all or even most good art ought to beat us over the head with the bad things in life.

Perhaps not, but it depends on how you view art. I do think that art works that take on the theme of suffering have a great and possibly the greatest potential to be valuable to us.

Art can just provide us something interesting to think about, offer a puzzle, just be beautiful, make us think about counterfactual circumstances, OR offer us the truth. And when it offers us the truth, it need not consider every aspect of human experience. A fantastic piece of art could focus on the good, or it could focus on the bad, or it could do both, or it could do neither.

I maintain that works that present more than one side of things have greater potential anyway.

Of course, there is a hopelessly huge gap between "art and pessimism are intertwined" and "great art ought to be pessimistic and there is something wrong with non-pessimistic art or artists."

Your second statement is complete fabrication. If I condemned anything, it was condemning art works that are shallow make-belief.

To give a somewhat concrete example, I don't think anyone can make a good case that Transformers 2 (with all morals of the story it has) is a great work of art, whereas an art film that deals with life in a deep, insightful and more balanced way stand an infinitely better chance of being great.

And you've made no (non-stupid) case for the view that "acknowledging the painful truth" ought to be the primary goal of art, and not just one among many things an artist may take for their subject without sacrificing greatness.

I think it is a very important goal because it is helpful to us. Sounds pretty reasonable...

I don't want to drag this into an actual debate, just wanted to elaborate on mrt's point that your posts in this thread are in fact silly and wrong. Go run along now.

Of course, you're always right, aren't you?

 

[mrt144]

Aelf, you're making two statements and trying to interweve them;

THE TRUTH is inherently depressing.
Good art tries to reflect THE TRUTH as best as possible.

But once you study art you realize that good art isn't art that confirms your own biased outlook on life (That's good propaganda) and once you live life a bit more (and in your case start taking medication or exercising more) you realize that fundamental truths are neither optimistic or pessimistic and what you consider fundamental truths now likely aren't.

You're essentially looking at life as a false dichotomy not dissimilar to Patrick Swayze in "Donnie Dark"; Fear and Love. Place this art on the spectrum of Fear and Love.

And Fifty is usually right when he tackles a subject and not a person or the way people are.

 

[aelf]

Aelf, you're making two statements and trying to interweve them;

THE TRUTH is inherently depressing.
Good art tries to reflect THE TRUTH as best as possible.

But once you study art you realize that good art isn't art that confirms your own biased outlook on life (That's good propaganda) and once you live life a bit more (and in your case start taking medication or exercising more) you realize that fundamental truths are neither optimistic or pessimistic and what you consider fundamental truths now likely aren't.

You're essentially looking at life as a false dichotomy not dissimilar to Patrick Swayze in "Donnie Dark"; Fear and Love. Place this art on the spectrum of Fear and Love.

And Fifty is usually right when he tackles a subject and not a person or the way people are.

I don't think I'm being biased. Who wants to be unhappy? But we often are, for various reasons (but all stemming from how we relate to the world around us). And if we look around, there's a lot unhappiness. So it's not that I'm biased, it's just something that I observe. It could be that I'm wrong, but it would be great news if so. For everyone. When I say the truth, I mean the picture that you get when you look at human life in this world as a whole, with all the injustice, desperate poverty, fears, false hopes, wrong motivations, lack of love and compassion, etc.

And I'm not trying to give a comprehensive theory of art and its philosophy (might be a little lost because I was typing lazily). That's what Fifty seems to be mistaken about. I'm trying to explain why art and pessimism seem to click so much. Basically, it's because people do experience a lot of suffering, and they want to overcome it; and art can help with that. Like I said, that's neither new nor a purely amateurish view of art and (one of?) its role(s) in our lives. But I didn't put any names down precisely because I anticipated a criticism that Fifty was too quick to dish out there.

 

[Fifty]

And Fifty is usually right when he tackles a subject and not a person or the way people are.

WRONG! I'm always right, especially when I'm talking about people or the way people are!