The results are, interesting. My implication in this paper is not to humourize or play down a phenomena, but instead to explain it.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Looking Subtly Different.
My question has clearly been asked before. The relationship between artists and the drugs they are so often associated with is a match that has been the focus of many a discussion in the past. However, my question seems to implicate a different set of rules as the studies in the past. I do not intent to focus on merely one group of artiste, my focus lies across the spectrum from musicians to authors to painters. I also have no plans to limit myself to one drug; to focus on only, say alcohol. Personally, I feel that would not properly take into consideration what needs to be done to paint a clear picture of the complexity of the artistic world and how drugs play into it. These effects haven't just been studied recently either. More than half a century ago, according to the ArtNewsBlog, tests were being performed to see the results of LSD on a sketcher's work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I believe that drugs such as alcohol, and any other mind altering drugs should be considered as a type of "cheating device" when it comes to artists, painter, writers, and anyone else. When the human mind cannot form at the optimum level without the drug, why should "entertainers" become famous (or infamous) by using mind altering drugs. Professional athletes get suspensions, and fines, leaders of our country are forced to resign, and many employers ask possible employees to pass drug exams in order to be hired. Even though your research paper is not about what I just explained, what I do see is a correlation to my topic, the effects of mind altering (in my case physical) altering substances. They "open" the mind of its user, I believe, and equip him with the vision necessary to create ART.
ReplyDelete