If any external factor made you create art, would your art be created by that factor?
If any external factor made you create art, would your art be created by that factor?
Eg you create art to cope with depression, so your depression created all your art and it's actually not yours. And if it's popular or successful, your depression is talented and successful, not you.
You might have fun reading about non-duality and the Buddhist idea of no-self...
What is a you? Did you write this post, or did your past self write this post? Is your past self the same as your current self? Your current self probably says yes but would your past self agree? Etc.
Ultimately are being, actions, and decisions are made up from a web of inter-being and connections. If there is an us we are most certainly influenced greatly by external factors.
Are you really making an argument akin to, since it's your hands that create art, it's your hands that are creative, not you??
Can't you see how the question you pose doesn't even make sense?Depression is a state of mind, not inspiration for art. Depression is however a filter through which the art may be interpreted. But it's a t most only part of a way more complex process.
I'm not, actually. Just wondering why crediting a disorder for creating anything is normalized to the point you're the problem for wanting to be credited for your own work and be seen as more than a disorder.
It's such a stupid argument, tell me about it. Could you imagine your disorder creating all your art and accomplishing everything you've done? Who would want to be seen as a corpse animated by a disorder?
But all of the entire world will blindly agree if that disorder was the stupid puzzle piece one. No questions asked, that shit made all your art and you should be proud of being a vessel for a disorder that controls everything about you.
I guess in that sense you could say the only “creator” is the Big Bang.
If you wish to make art from scratch, you must first invent the universe.
Is this a backdoor to legitimizing AI art?
In any case, no, the creative agent is the one responsible for the art.
doesn't all great art come from pain?
It's called being cultured, like cheese. Though art is a bit different as whatever shapes you does so long-term, even if you could zap away issues instantly the memory and thus influence will still be there.
Also health/brain issues for me are likely a bigger detriment than anything, resulting in me doing nothing most of the time (small chores on a good day). So anything created is a rare win in spite of that.
My art is influenced by being broke - ie, all of my materials are repurposed, I’d rather thrift someone’s leftover paint or fabric than buy it new. I also do make it as a coping mechanism.
But my depression and poverty are external to me. They do influence my art, but they are not the creators of my art. My art has changed substantially in response to my mental health and economic status - they are influences - but they did not “make” my art any more than John Cage or Cy Twombly did.
Created by? No. Influenced or inspired by? Absolutely.
Depression cannot create art, but depression (or anger or happiness, or love) will influence your art.
Also, popular and successful doesn't always mean good. It might just be more relatable, and if the rest of the world is feeling like me, depression is IN right now.