Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

First of all, I have to put a "Nerd Alert" on this post. I know there are a lot of smart people here that won't be turned off by this message being a little pretentious, but for those of you who are, ye have been warned.

So, recently I've been suffering from writer's block. I had a pretty good streak going there for awhile, and then I just stopped. I think part of this is the result of uncertainty about the purpose of my writing. In other words, I've been asking myself, what does it mean to be a "writer" (or, what kind of a writer am I trying to be) and what am I trying to accomplish with my writing?

While mulling over that question at work, I had a random through and jotted it down in an E-mail:

______________________________________________________

I am not an artist, I am an intellectual.

An artist is first and foremost a creative force. That's not to say an intellectual can't be creative as well. I am creative in both my writing and my speech. However, as an intellectual, that creative energy is never the focus of my ambition.

A true artist will place creativity at the forefront of his endeavors. An intellectual will be more concerned with meaning. The intellectual's goal is to obtain knowledge in the pursuit of some sort of truth. His art, if any, should primarily concern itself with divulging this "truth," or the closest thing to it.

This is not to say that the intellectual will not have creative impulses, or that the artist never concerns himself with expressing his objective truth, his "message," though his creativity. But an artist should focus primarily on process, the way in which he creates, while an intellectual should focus primarily on product, the knowledge that he is trying to divulge to the world.

______________________________________________________


Wow, is it really 11:30 on a Friday night? Hey, I did say "Nerd Alert."

So, yeah, I generally don't like broad generalizations, and I don't contend that the above is entirely or even partially true in its definitions of "artists" and "intellectuals" or in how I fit into either of those two categories. But it did jump start my brain a little bit.

Coincidentally, I was reading Wealth of Nations yesterday and came across the following in one of the footnotes:

Mandeville, Fable of the Bees: "They are very seldom the same sort of people, those that invent arts and improvements in them and those that inquire into the reason of things: this latter is more commonly practiced by such as are idle and indolent, that are fond of retirement, hate business and take delight in speculation; whereas none succeed oftener in the first than active, stirring and laborious men, such as will put their hand to the plough, try experiments and give all their attention to what they are about."

Eerily similar to what I wrote, though there are differences. He's basically saying intellectuals (I think he uses the word "philosophers") are lazy and artists are active. I guess artists do tend to be more "hands on" but I know plenty of intellectuals who are the same. Also, I don't find they are "very seldom" the same sort of people. In fact, I think quite often they are the same sort of people. I think the difference is only the result of emphasizing one characteristic over the other.

/pretentious rambling

Thoughts?

Ha, Nerd Alert... I was just playing some LAN Diablo II and Magic: The Gathering card games not 15 minutes ago. Join the club heh.

I'm not sure I understand entirely what you wrote there. I pretty much read the top part and saw the words "writer's block" and hoped you were going to continue on about how you cured it. Emailing yourself... never tried that.

That's sure is neat that someone else wrote that similar piece. What can be made of it... coincidence partly. Seems like your writer's block was actually more than that don't you agree?

--------------------

This is my world: (Got my second chapter up, 3rd Chapter about 80% complete)
http://www3.sympatico.ca/daniel876/homepage.html

Pretty interesting... o.ô

I do think there's a few artists though that put a lot of emphasis and thought into the message being conveyed... basically the Roddenberrys and such that try to put a moral into every story they write. Guess it's like you said, it's getting where the two are coming together in a balance... the artists more concerned about the product than the process. Sorta the way I am... it's more important to me that the end result means something (whether intellectual or emotional) rather than just plain doing something. Y'know? Yeah...

--------------------

~Status Report~

* Completed... Dragon's Head
* Completed... Soldiers of the Empire: Disciples (release pending)
* In Progress/Undecided... Of Love and Betrayal
* Planning/Assembly... Where it all Began

From what I understood of these two statements, an "intellectual's" main focus is research, while an "artist" perfers to do creative work.
Both want to leave some kind message for the further generations.

What I call myself is hardly one of these terms. I'm by far too active for a philosopher and not creatively constructive enough for an artist.
I call myself a "freak".

Side note: I've written this post one-handed.

--------------------

"I fell off the mountain of words at around the 10,000ft mark. Tell my family...they owe me money." -Narratorway

"If you retort against this, so help me God I'll shove any part of your anatomy I can find into some other part. Figuratively, of course." - Josh

"We have more, can deliver tuesday." - Del S

Good old CoN

Well, I'd say that you're an intelectual artist. In other words, you're a structured person who seeks truth and puts plenty of thought into your creative works that you're attempting to make progress on. Try inserting yourself into your character's shoes for a while and see what you would do in the same situation, then try to build from there. It just might help.

As for my thoughts on this. Creativity and intelect rely one one another because a person will never make anything good without putting thought into it and no further truths can be found without a spurt of creativity. Why else would listening to classical music help one concentrate? Why else would a good story need a good plot structure? The sciencentific and artistic aproches both seem very differnt at first glance but in reality they both have plenty more common ground then one would initially think. If one were to look at them both hardly enough of course. Great minds do tend to think alike, in their own way.

--------------------

Role reversal at its finest.

I can sympathize.

For almost two years now I study Literature Studies at university. When I started, I figured it would be a great help in what I really wanted at the time; to become a writer. Surely my interest in books could only lead to one thing?

I've written. By ye gods, I have. I've written short stories, I've written fanfiction (some can be found on this site), I've written doodles, one-liners, poetry, wrote down ideas for larger novels (which I still consider to be really good ideas, by the way ). But writing is not for me, I think.

You see, I've read countless books of all kinds. I've read those small romance novels about nurses and docters meant for housewives. I've read Das Kapital and Mein Kampf (neither entirely, but German is hard to read in). I've read the post-modernists, I've read African books, I've read Poe and Rushdie, etcetera. I've read the Bible, sure.

And I've never found The Book. The Book to end all books. Some lifted by spirit and I felt like I was walking on air after finishing it; some crushed it and left me feeling moody and misantropic (1984, to name one). And always I figured I would write it.

But no. I don't have the patience. I don't have King's drive, I don't have Orwell's vision, I don't have Douglas Adams' refreshing humor. And to be honest, I enjoy working WITH books more than I do working ON one.

One more thing: The thought that artists should, above all, be creative is in my eyes nonsense. Humbug! One of Dickens' bad potatoes It's a fairly recent idea, actually. If you ask me, L'art pour l'art is retarded and pretentious, as if art is anything more than reproducing reality in such a way it grips the consumer more than reality itself does. I'd say artists are those who try to achieve this, and intellectuals those who talk about the artists and think about the best way to achieve it. Sure, that turns them - including me - into what the Dutch call 'Captains on shore', but I believe they're more important than that metaphor would have you believe

And please, don't feel like this topic is either nerdish or pretentieus. Maybe an internet forum not directly meant for it is a place you won't find the topic appear often, but it's a very interesting discussion and beats more than half of the stuff I have to listen to in class


--------------------

The Collapse of Heaven and Earth

You also have to take into consideration who the writer (or painter or musician or whatever) is writing (or painting or composing) for. If he's whiting for his audience, to entertain them (or possibly teach them); it would be much different from if he writes for himself, possibly to think something through, or out of a need to get that story out of his brain (much like the need to pee), to let his imagination and creativity flow naturally. A person could also be doing both with the same art.
I'm not really sure which one is more intellectual and which is more artistic.
Then there is the term applied to art: intellectual property. What do you think of that term?

--------------------

M777: lightweight 155mm howitzer
3/11 rules over all artillery!

Quote

what am I trying to accomplish with my writing?

There's only one good reason to write; one, and only one. Are you ready to hear it? It is:

To make money.

Nothing else matters. Forget creativity. Forget originality. Forget turning your book into a never-forgotten American Novel. You are writing to make money money money money.

Let me quote Djibriel for a moment:

Quote

If you ask me, L'art pour l'art is retarded and pretentious, as if art is anything more than reproducing reality in such a way it grips the consumer more than reality itself does.

Big word on that. I used to be something of an intellectual snob that thought that ‘high art’ existed, blah blah blah. The truth is, nobody cares. Money is the object. Be a whore. Indulge yourself. You deserve it.

Kidding aside, though, people should most of all write for their own sake. It’s an escape the way that reading is, an outlet for creativity. If you want to do it, do it. Chances are, you’ll find an audience, even if you don’t get profit off it. Most artists wish to profit, but if they don’t, do they stop creating? Usually not. They do it anyway, because it’s a method of self-expression. And that, in itself, can be an end. Not as the aforementioned pretentious “art for art’s sake”— just creativity for creativity’s sake, if you will.

I've been playing FF7, FFX, and FFT and in between, I haven't written anything new. Not because I question my writing technique or being a writer all together, it's just that, right now, I'd just rather play than write.

--------------------

"Thought I was dead, eh? Not until I fulfill my dream!"
Seifer Almasy


"The most important part of the story is the ending."
Secret Window


"Peace is but a shadow of death."
Kuja

Artists are concerned with truth. Intellectuals are concerned with logic. Most people aren't just one or the other.

--------------------

Veni, vidi, dormivi.

I couldn't care less about "truth" or "logic". They are both highly overrated in my opinion. I get concerned with things that are cool and blow my mind regardless if it's true or logical. But that's just me .

--------------------

"Thought I was dead, eh? Not until I fulfill my dream!"
Seifer Almasy


"The most important part of the story is the ending."
Secret Window


"Peace is but a shadow of death."
Kuja

Quote (Djibriel @ 30th April 2005 07:21)

If you ask me, L'art pour l'art is retarded and pretentious, as if art is anything more than reproducing reality in such a way it grips the consumer more than reality itself does.

I really respect the latter half of that statement, very profound. BUT. There is a reason we call them Starving artists. I think most artists choose to be artists because they have a passion for it and hopefully a talent for it. Those of us who are passionate about it but lack the sufficient talent are doomed to be critics. Maybe your use of the term carries more meaning than the literal interpretation I'm reading into it: L'art pour l'art vs L'art pour le ching ching. Because we know the latter case is a rare thing to achieve even amongst the most talented.

Quote

There's only one good reason to write; one, and only one. Are you ready to hear it? It is:

To make money.

I couldn't disagree more. How bout to move people? Or enact change by affecting the minds of others? and most importantly:

To be heard.

This post has been edited by The Ancient on 24th May 2005 19:49

--------------------

"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"

Intelect and artistry are two different forms of expression for an idea. One is emotional, the other logical. It's that simple.

This post has been edited by Narratorway on 28th May 2005 08:52

--------------------

Arts

Farts

Twarts

Quote (karasuman @ 23rd May 2005 09:02)

Artists are concerned with truth. Intellectuals are concerned with logic. Most people aren't just one or the other.

i can't see why it's artists you say who are concerned with truth. it seems to me that the intellectual (philosophers, scientists, theologians, &c.) group is the one perpetually on a search for the truth. in fact, artists, instead of being preoccupied with a search for the truth, are some of the best liars in the world. picasso himself said "art is a lie which makes us realise the truth." artists, then, are concerned with expression.

it isn't to say that there are no intellectual artists or artistic intellectuals. in fact, most of the famous "artists" in history, whether musicians, or painters, or fictionists, were certainly among the world's most powerful intellectuals. a lot of writers, especially, are probably very gifted intellectually.

also, i cannot agree that ars gratia artis is "retarded" or "pretentious." art is certainly much more than simply "reproducing reality in such a way it grips the consumer more than reality itself does." art eclipses reality. reality is just the aggregate of our everyday experiences and events -- it has no rhyme or reason to it. art, au contraire, can be given by the artist many different provocative levels of meaning, and it doesn't even have to be realistic, in the terms of our everyday experiences. art is not limited by the parameters of reality and is therefore far, far more than a more gripping reinterpretation of reality. art for the sake of art focuses on making *good art,* not art which answers to the jingle of the register. how is that pretentious? i should say it is commendable. naturally, there *does* seem to be a disturbing amount of ars gratia artis "artists" which use their "transcendant" non-commercialism to exalt themselves among their peers, but that makes a grand fool of the individual, not the concept.

Quote

art, au contraire, can be given by the artist many different provocative levels of meaning, and it doesn't even have to be realistic, in the terms of our everyday experiences.

I must admit your 'au contraire' can be replaced by a 'mutatis mutandis'. Reality has its own share of interpretations, right? A strongly devoted Muslim will have an entirely different outlook on 'reality' than a communist who detects capitalist plots on every corner. Aren't we discussing reality right now? Don't we have both different interpretations of it?

Also, I've always found that the UNrealistic approach to art, ranging from fantasy novels to Who's afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue is especially busy with reproducing reality. Greater men than me have said that the real spirit of a civilization lies in what it dreams of.

Allow me to produce another metaphor. Imagine a rich kid, who enjoys his money and priviliges and boasts about it to the other kids. Did he earn all this himself? No! He's merely suckling at the breast of his family's succes. Would you say he deserves this status above the other kids simply by virtue of being the offspring of a succesful daddy? No, you won't.
And that's what the abominations solely relying on l'art pour l'art are doing. They are saying 'I deserve the social privilige, the high position on the social ladder, because this is art'. And just because little Jimmy's last name is Rockefeller doesn't mean he directly earns everything he has, being art doesn't mean it is acceptable to construct something simply because it is art.

If you feel that you're onto something new, an approach so far ignored or unheard of, you're experimenting in new ways to reproduce reality, trying to see if it can say something other works of art couldn't; l'art pour l'art is simply empty.

--------------------

The Collapse of Heaven and Earth

Quote

Reality has its own share of interpretations, right? A strongly devoted Muslim will have an entirely different outlook on 'reality' than a communist who detects capitalist plots on every corner. Aren't we discussing reality right now? Don't we have both different interpretations of it?

i refuse to argue whether the cat is on the mat with you, if that's what you're getting at. while perceptions of reality can differ greatly from person to person, the *experience* of reality itself (the "truth" of reality, if you will) can, in the grand scheme of things, only be correctly percieved in some exact way (disregarding useless semantic argument). the communist who "discovers" capitalist plots on every corner is living in a false reality (we might even go so far as to call his overactive imagination productive of "unrealistic" scenarios). the idealist who believes all is right with the world is similar. but whether the rain is falling on me or i am falling into the rain, if i don't have an umbrella, chances are i'll be pretty pissed. art doesn't care what the truth is, and it has total disdain for the laws of physics by which reality are governed. i can sing that it's raining and you wouldn't get wet. i could write an obscenely detailed series of novels about capitalist plots of world domination -- the world, i assure you, would continue as normal. if anything, it is art's power as a vessel in which the audience can momentarily be whisked *away* from reality that gives it such import. the artist may be trying to reproduce something in the reality, *or* he may be completely unconcerned with the reality for his piece. *everything* is in his hands. in either case, the finished product, if good art, has transcended the reality from which it was born.

Quote

And that's what the abominations solely relying on l'art pour l'art are doing. They are saying 'I deserve the social privilige, the high position on the social ladder, because this is art'. And just because little Jimmy's last name is Rockefeller doesn't mean he directly earns everything he has, being art doesn't mean it is acceptable to construct something simply because it is art.

~

Quote

naturally, there *does* seem to be a disturbing amount of ars gratia artis "artists" which use their "transcendant" non-commercialism to exalt themselves among their peers, but that makes a grand fool of the individual, not the concept.

you're drawing a blanket stereotype, and that's almost as disturbingly elitist as the rockefeller child to which you equate the entire population of art-for-artists. no, one definitely does not choose to be an art-for-art-ist for "social privilege." of course there are many such artists who feel that their devotion to art itself entitles them to a high degree of respect, many of these super-inflate their own egos by regularly serenading themselves with undeserved praise. but to say the purpose of ars gratia artis is only to foster superiority complexes? it's foolishness. the power of art is to be respected. art for its sake is a commendable expression of that respect.

Quote

If you feel that you're onto something new, an approach so far ignored or unheard of, you're experimenting in new ways to reproduce reality, trying to see if it can say something other works of art couldn't; l'art pour l'art is simply empty.

no, see, here you are saying that art must be innovative to work, and i know you don't think that is true. and even so! if the *purpose* of the artist in your scenario is not to make money (or make something for a certain reason or anything like that), and instead to furhter *art* by inventing these new techniques or whatever in hell you're talking about, then we have an example of ars gratia artis. oops.

edit: upon further consideration, it has come to me that we're probably working under different definitions of art-for-art. but it seems to me that yours jsut encompasses all the artists who feel that their "pure' art deserves them some kind of acknowledgment of superiority. and so, instead of art-for-art, isn't that just egotism? van gogh was certainly an art-for-art-ist (one of the more innovative, i'd say). dylan started as art-for-art (arguably, that's also probably the only reason he's still making music. the list can go on. art-for-art is not inherently "pretentious."

This post has been edited by gozaru~ on 29th May 2005 22:51

Oh wait! I know! Here's how I tell the difference. Artists make my eyes bleed, Intellectuals make my ears bleed.

--------------------

Arts

Farts

Twarts

Quote

Oh wait! I know! Here's how I tell the difference. Artists make my eyes bleed, Intellectuals make my ears bleed.

I like that one. Let's stick with it for now.

Quote (The Ancient @ 24th May 2005 14:44)

Quote

There's only one good reason to write; one, and only one. Are you ready to hear it? It is:

To make money.

I couldn't disagree more. How bout to move people? Or enact change by affecting the minds of others? and most importantly:

To be heard.

Hmm...

Mmm...


. . . . . . .



Nope. It's all about the money, baby.

Reminder to self: flag jokes with clear warning labels.

This post has been edited by manapriestess on 1st June 2005 00:30