Drugs and creativity?

MrStuffins

By the way, for everyone using The Beatles as an example of awesomeness on drugs, have you ever heard Revolution 9?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQal-lJrSLI

parrai

MrStuffins wrote: »

By the way, for everyone using The Beatles as an example of awesomeness on drugs, have you ever heard Revolution 9?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQal-lJrSLI

What's cool about this though, is that they recorded what they heard and followed through to give (for me) the listener an idea of what it was like to be in this frame of mind... From this perspective, I think that is quite cool.

True, to the sober mind, it's sounds like jibberish... but interesting nonetheless if is it is listened to with an open mind, which is what LSD, does, and, is this case, is demonstrating.

texidub

Artists aren't the type of people that will give the anti-drugs people pause for thought.

The following brief examples should help them though:

The gathering included a discussion of how early computer pioneers used LSD for inspiration. Douglas Englebart, the inventor of the mouse, Myron Stolaroff, a former Ampex engineer and LSD researcher who was attending the symposium, and Apple-cofounder Steve Jobs were among them. In the 2005 book What the Dormouse Said, New York Times reporter John Markoff quotes Jobs describing his LSD experience as "one of the two or three most important things he has done in his life."

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/01/70015?currentPage=all


20 percent of scientists admit using brain-enhancing drugs:

Nature released the results of an online survey in which 20 percent of respondents, largely drawn from the scientific community, admitted to using brain-enhancing drugs like Ritalin (methylphenidate) and Provigil (modafinil).

Sixty-two percent of the scientists who had taken drugs used Ritalin while 44 percent reported using Provigil and only 14 percent had tried beta blockers like propranolol.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/20-of-scientist/


And Crick was on LSD when he conceived of the double-helix structure of DNA:

http://www.miqel.com/entheogens/francis_crick_dna_lsd.html

Intelligent people are more likely to be curious and experimental than others, which increases the chances of them taking drugs. Which is not to say that they will handle them any better than other people.. intelligence is one thing and character is another.

mikom

MrStuffins wrote: »

By the way, for everyone using The Beatles as an example of awesomeness on drugs, have you ever heard Revolution 9?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQal-lJrSLI

And this was recorded whilst drug free.... problem.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xD2p3JuPt4

MrStuffins

parrai wrote: »

What's cool about this though, is that they recorded what they heard and followed through to give (for me) the listener an idea of what it was like to be in this frame of mind... From this perspective, I think that is quite cool.

True, to the sober mind, it's sounds like jibberish... but interesting nonetheless if is it is listened to with an open mind, which is what LSD, does, and, is this case, is demonstrating.

That's not "cool". It's sh*te! It gives an idea into the mind of someone on LSD maybe, but all it says about it is that it can make you think a song like this is a good idea at the time and then heard with sober ears, it's sh*te!

It's sh*te to the sober mind, it's sh*te to the drug fuelled mind, it's plain sh*te!

And i'm a massive Beatles fan by the way. But let's get real here!

MrStuffins

mikom wrote: »

And this was recorded whilst drug free.... problem.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xD2p3JuPt4

Oh....

Brain Stroking

MrStuffins wrote: »

You must've been at the Domestos when you typed this out?

You've said people can't name 20 people not on drugs because you took some drugs and because you've formed the notion that I am anti-drugs?

How is any of this relevant to there being a lot of people who were creative but not on drugs?

By the way, i'm not Anti-Drugs. But people HAVE been talking about the types of drugs like heroin, crack etc. One poster used 3 people as examples, Burroghs, Hendrix and Cobain. 2 of these people diedas a result of their addiction to hard drugs.

I can understand your point of view, but to tell me my opinions are based on an Anti-Drugs viewpoint is wrong.

It works both ways you see. Your Beatles comment is obviously a product of YOUR pro-drug stance. The Beatles late work was no better than their early work, it was just different. To call them "Westlife teen idol prototype" is not entirely true and I bet that you know that, but it didnt stop you trying to use it as part of your argument.

Your stance on this issue was made clear by your first 2 posts on page 1. That is what i'm referring to. Your first comment to a question on whether drugs aid creativity was to bring up someone dying in their own feces.
I also note that you havent challenged my assumption that you have never taken drugs. If this is the case (i'm assuming again of course) then you can only come to your conclusion by using third party anecdotes and objective observations based on statistics. I'm giving you a third party anecdote by saying that i feel it has made me more insightful at times. I had a lawyer friend point this to be his experience also in a conversation we had only the other night.

You say that others on this thread have referred to crack and cocaine but, again, i was not referring to their comments. I was referring to the question at hand and your immediate black and white "drugs are bad m'kay" response. There is nothing totally black and white in this world and this issue is no different. Some people will not be any more creative but some will. And if this is the case then the answer to the OP's question has to be yes.

As for you saying you are not "anti-drugs" then fair enough. I dont know you and all i have to say is based on your posts. Of which there are more on this thread than any other poster. The more politically incorrect response to the OP's question is to obviously answer yes. You arent challenging the status quo by answering in the negative. So if you arent anti-drugs as you say then why such interest in pushing your opinion? You made your opinion known on page 1. The lady doth protest too much me thinks.

As for whether i am pro-drugs, well i refer you to the experience i have had with marijuana and (very rare) dalliances with LSD, mushrooms and ecstasy. I wouldnt say i am pro as i see faults with them all and like alcohol and cigarettes these drugs when abused cause people problems. But do they aid creativity in my opinion? Yes.

As for the Domestos comment, i've never heard of consuming domestos. Can you explain what that entails? Or will i refer you to my comments in my previous post about the general population's complete ignorance to the drug issue?

parrai

MrStuffins wrote: »

That's not "cool". It's sh*te! It gives an idea into the mind of someone on LSD maybe, but all it says about it is that it can make you think a song like this is a good idea at the time and then heard with sober ears, it's sh*te!

It's sh*te to the sober mind, it's sh*te to the drug fuelled mind, it's plain sh*te!

And i'm a massive Beatles fan by the way. But let's get real here!

Depends on the perspective and imagination of the listener, it's shyte to you, but to me, it's an interesting insight... My mind is open to it, and I can relate. I feel enlightened to be able to understand this type of idea.

MrStuffins

parrai wrote: »

Depends on the perspective and imagination of the listener, it's shyte to you, but to me, it's an interesting insight... My mind is open to it, and I can relate. I feel enlightened to be able to understand this type of idea.

Possibly. But as a pop song on a pop record it's sh*te!

Latchy

Revolution no 9 is a combination of recorded backward loops with the repeat of 'no 9' coming from the studio technician and the dark end does suggest revoloution so in that sense it was different and showed where the Beatles heads were at the time which they had already experimented with in 'tomorow never knows ' from the revolver album in 1965 .

parrai

MrStuffins wrote: »

Possibly. But as a pop song on a pop record it's sh*te!

I don't think it was intended to be though...

MrStuffins

Brain Stroking wrote: »

Your stance on this issue was made clear by your first 2 posts on page 1.

No it wasn't. you just presumed as much

That is what i'm referring to. Your first comment to a question on whether drugs aid creativity was to bring up someone dying in their own feces.

Many people have been creative on drugs. Many people have died in theor own feces while on drugs. It's true. If you think it's not, say so.

I also note that you havent challenged my assumption that you have never taken drugs.

I don't feel I need to.

If this is the case (i'm assuming again of course) then you can only come to your conclusion by using third party anecdotes and objective observations based on statistics.

Well this is what this thread is about isn''t it? Talking about third parties and the effects of drugs on them?

I'm giving you a third party anecdote by saying that i feel it has made me more insightful at times. I had a lawyer friend point this to be his experience also in a conversation we had only the other night.

Ok

You say that others on this thread have referred to crack and cocaine but, again, i was not referring to their comments. I was referring to the question at hand and your immediate black and white "drugs are bad m'kay" response. There is nothing totally black and white in this world and this issue is no different. Some people will not be any more creative but some will. And if this is the case then the answer to the OP's question has to be yes.

I don't have a "drugs are bad m'kay" attitude. I've said multiple times on this thread that I am not anti-drugs.

As for you saying you are not "anti-drugs" then fair enough. I dont know you and all i have to say is based on your posts. Of which there are more on this thread than any other poster. The more politically incorrect response to the OP's question is to obviously answer yes. You arent challenging the status quo by answering in the negative. So if you arent anti-drugs as you say then why such interest in pushing your opinion? You made your opinion known on page 1. The lady doth protest too much me thinks.

Well, this isn't about pushing opinion. It's about discussion. After all, this is a discussion forum. If everybody just posted once in every thread, laying out their opinion and then disappearing, Boards would be a very boring place.

As for whether i am pro-drugs, well i refer you to the experience i have had with marijuana and (very rare) dalliances with LSD, mushrooms and ecstasy. I wouldnt say i am pro as i see faults with them all and like alcohol and cigarettes these drugs when abused cause people problems. But do they aid creativity in my opinion? Yes.

It's very possible they do! I actually never said they didn't.

As for the Domestos comment, i've never heard of consuming domestos. Can you explain what that entails? Or will i refer you to my comments in my previous post about the general population's complete ignorance to the drug issue?

Give "Back from the Brink" by Paul McGrath a read. Even if you're not into football it's a seriously harrowing read about a man and his troubles with alcohol abuse.

In one chapter he describes how when one day he needed a drink and his wife had gotten rid of every drop of alcohol in the house, he resprted to drinking a bottle of Domestos

mikom

MrStuffins wrote: »

In one chapter he describes how when one day he needed a drink and his wife had gotten rid of every drop of alcohol in the house, he resprted to drinking a bottle of Domestos

Alcoholism's a bleach.

Snowie

board.eddy wrote: »

Drugs are a massive hinderance to writing creatively imo, take a look at the stuff the beatles wrote when they were high, lucy in the sky, yellow submarine etc, not their best work at all.
i have often come up with guitar stuff when high, thought it was great then played it sober to realise its a whole heap of **** nothing

To be fait those albums were experementle and did kind pave the way for what whats stereo and more then 8 tracks to record on as for writing well look drugs turn your brain to mush we all know that... Some people seem to think they can give wondrous accounts of knowlagable bull sh1t when at the end of it.
Its down to your own mindfulness I'm sure you understand what I mean

Latchy wrote: »

The influence of some drugs can and does sometimes bring out a side of you that may differ from what you are really all about and can equally destroy what talent you may already have .Some mind altering substances can induce an egotistical state which if not kept in check.

wow so you must like be a artist or something weres your source of information ? I don't think you have the ability to even go down the above "pyscho Bable" your trying to sell because your talking sh1t

{

---

Snip}

---

}

mikom

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

Your talking ****, if your a creative person you have for sight to what you want to create the use of drugs in some cases can help to say that you need drugs to be creative is nothing more then a fvcking lie and the need to hide what most would see as an addiction.

Wait, what?

MrStuffins

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

Your talking ****, if your a creative person you have for sight to what you want to create the use of drugs in some cases can help to say that you need drugs to be creative is nothing more then a fvcking lie and the need to hide what most would see as an addiction.

Did you mean to quote me that time? I have no idea how my comment is relevent to what you just said??

Latchy

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

wow so you must like be a artist or something weres your source of information ? I don't think you have the ability to even go down the above "pyscho Bable" your trying to sell because your talking sh1t

Ability ? I'm just about to have dinner now ..get back to ya later .

Snowie

MrStuffins wrote: »

Did you mean to quote me that time? I have no idea how my comment is relevent to what you just said??

quoted the wrong part

MrStuffins

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

quoted the wrong part

Did you mean to quote me at all?

I'm still not sure anything i've said is relevent to what you said.

Snowie

MrStuffins wrote: »

Did you mean to quote me at all?

I'm still not sure anything i've said is relevent to what you said.

I dunno I just drank a 5th of vodka and I'm about to bag a 7 gram rock wanna join in

but no... I didn't i was thinking .. something or read something completely wrong..

Sky King

It was very creative though

Brain Stroking

MrStuffins wrote: »

No it wasn't. you just presumed as much

Many people have been creative on drugs. Many people have died in theor own feces while on drugs. It's true. If you think it's not, say so.

I refer you to the OP's question: Do drugs aid creativity? Are you now saying that they do?
Yes people have come to sticky ends on drugs. As they have drinking alcohol. Or smoking cigarettes. Or when driving their cars. All irrelevant to the issue.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well this is what this thread is about isn''t it? Talking about third parties and the effects of drugs on them?

Eh no. It's not. It is about whether drugs aid creativity.

MrStuffins wrote: »

I don't have a "drugs are bad m'kay" attitude. I've said multiple times on this thread that I am not anti-drugs.

Saying it once and leaving it at i'd believe you. You couldnt have portrayed a more anti-drugs position in this thread if you tried. Throwing in an obligatory "By the way i'm not anti-drugs" at the end of each post doesnt negate the general viewpoint you're putting forward.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well, this isn't about pushing opinion. It's about discussion. After all, this is a discussion forum. If everybody just posted once in every thread, laying out their opinion and then disappearing, Boards would be a very boring place.

Fair enough. As i said, i dont know you and this is my second post on this thread so what does that say about me as regards pushing opinion?
But what i will say is you gauge opinion on drugs in two specific camps: pro or anti. I have engaged at this level as you introduced it. But, as i've already said in my previous post, there are good and bad to each drug. Doesnt mean the answer to the OP's question is no.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Give "Back from the Brink" by Paul McGrath a read. Even if you're not into football it's a seriously harrowing read about a man and his troubles with alcohol abuse.

In one chapter he describes how when one day he needed a drink and his wife had gotten rid of every drop of alcohol in the house, he resprted to drinking a bottle of Domestos

I read that book. It was a harrowing read and, when i saw your earlier comment of me being on the Domestos; that was the first thing that crossed my mind! It is completely off-topic though i'm sure you will admit?
There were crossed wires here in that i thought you were saying that i had to be on drugs to make a comment like i did (as this thread is about drugs and we all know that in everyday life alcohol being a drug isnt really acknowledged) and that Domestos was the drug i was on. I didnt realise you were implying that i made my arguments as a result of me being a chronic alcoholic at my complete low point. By the way i am not an alcoholic and hardly drink. But again, off topic and i'm not sure why you thought it might support your argument.

Anyways, i disagree with your view and particularly your method of putting it across. I doubt the credibility of your claims of being ambivalent and not in any camp on the drugs issue. I also believe you have contradicted yourself in that you disagree with the OP yet you say that drugs do aid creativity.
But i'm also sure you feel similarly about my arguments. Such is life

MrStuffins

Brain Stroking wrote: »

I refer you to the OP's question: Do drugs aid creativity? Are you now saying that they do?
Yes people have come to sticky ends on drugs. As they have drinking alcohol. Or smoking cigarettes. Or when driving their cars. All irrelevant to the issue.

Yes, very irrelevent to the issue. Drugs, however, are not.

Eh no. It's not. It is about whether drugs aid creativity.

Yes, the OP used third parties as examples. The question wasn't "Do drugs aid YOUR creativity" it was, using third party exapmles, do drugs aid creativity.

Saying it once and leaving it at i'd believe you. You couldnt have portrayed a more anti-drugs position in this thread if you tried. Throwing in an obligatory "By the way i'm not anti-drugs" at the end of each post doesnt negate the general viewpoint you're putting forward.

Nope but it clarifies my stand-point to those bothered to listen.

Fair enough. As i said, i dont know you and this is my second post on this thread so what does that say about me as regards pushing opinion?

I'd have never thought you were pushing anything unless you had some sort of agenda here. I would'e just thought you were discussing and expressing an opinion.

But what i will say is you gauge opinion on drugs in two specific camps: pro or anti. I have engaged at this level as you introduced it. But, as i've already said in my previous post, there are good and bad to each drug. Doesnt mean the answer to the OP's question is no.

You're just plain wrong here. If you judge everybodies opinions on drugs on presuming they fall into two distinct camps then any logic put into an opinion opposing another here is seriously flawed.

Anyways, i disagree with your view and particularly your method of putting it across. I doubt the credibility of your claims of being ambivalent and not in any camp on the drugs issue. I also believe you have contradicted yourself in that you disagree with the OP yet you say that drugs do aid creativity.
But i'm also sure you feel similarly about my arguments. Such is life

See, this is where we have a problem. You have just gone ahead and presumed I have certain opinions, that I have said things without saying them and that I think things all on the basis that you think people fall into 2 camps.

I never once claimed drugs don't aid creativity. All I said was that, while it's possible, naming people proves nothing because there are a lot more people who have been creative without the use of drugs.

I've been pretty clear here i'm not sure your confusion.

YFlyer

Latchy wrote: »

In the case of the Beatles ,you only have to listen to their work from 1962-66 then listen to their later stuff 1967-70 to see that their drug influenced creativity took another turn which didn't affect their success at all and many other groups like the Doors ,Pink Floyd and the Stones all produced albums that were heavily influenced by drugs but there can be a price to pay for this over indulgence as has shown .

Their transcendental meditation period.

Saila

I think if you are creative already, taking drugs like LSD especially CAN give you new experiences to draw on and new ways to think about and interpret stuff.

I think if you are not from the creative spectrum you'll just turn into a tit or even more of a tit.

MrStuffins

Also

Brain Stroking wrote: »

I was referring to the question at hand and your immediate black and white "drugs are bad m'kay" response. There is nothing totally black and white in this world and this issue is no different.

Brain Stroking wrote: »

But what i will say is you gauge opinion on drugs in two specific camps: pro or anti.

Seems slightly contradictory but i'm open to correction.

Brain Stroking

I expected no less McStuffins. You cant change your stance at this point can you?

I've made my point and have nothing further to add except that, in conclusion, i do believe that drugs aid creativity. They aided mine and they have been accredited with aiding the activity of others.

I have read some books and articles on the brain and i feel that drugs have the potential to help unlock and utilise parts of our brains that remain dormant. There is so much still to discover as regards the human brain and humans may look back on the time when drugs were a taboo as a rather odd and quaint quirk of their evolution.

Coriolanus

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]These 9 drawings were done by an artist under the influence of LSD -- part of a test conducted by the US government during it's dalliance with psychotomimetic drugs in the late 1950's. The artist was given a dose of LSD 25 and free access to an activity box full of crayons and pencils. His subject is the medico that jabbed him.[/FONT]

http://www.cowboybooks.com.au/html/acidtrip1.html

Take a look, interesting to say the least.

MrStuffins

Brain Stroking wrote: »

I expected no less McStuffins. You cant change your stance at this point can you?

why would I change my stance? I don't think my stance is very unreasonable.

My stance is and was this, it's possible drugs could aid creativity but it is also possible that the people who are on these drugs were creative anyway. Name 1 creative person who was on drugs and people can name many more who were not on drugs when being creative.

What's so bad about this stance?

Latchy

Did you mean to quote me that time? I have no idea how my comment is relevent to what you just said??

I think McStuffins post above sums it for me but however ...

Originally Posted by Snow-Monkey


wow so you must like be a artist or something weres your source of information ?

Hmm...well I might have some artistic talents but that's irellevant weather I do or not , I never suffered for my art ...but you are impying that only an 'artist' in whatever genere they are , will have an expierence or viewpoint on something ?

My source of information comes my own personall expierences in life and from taking some time over the years to learn more in depth about subjects such as which doesn't as you seem to imply , make me some expert but it does make me informed .

Then I will break down , take from and use that information when it suits .... ya still with me Snowey ? :pac:

I don't think you have the ability to even go down the above "pyscho Bable" your trying to sell because your talking sh1t

I don't think I could assume what other abilitys I ,you or anybody else has in this thread when it's people giving humble opinions ie, the ability to express onself ??? I've been around long enough to not have to use 'phyco babble ' which in your case , is usually a term of phrase somebody drags out in liu of not being quite sure what it is they are trying to say .

YFlyer wrote: »

Their transcendental meditation period.

That's was a very interesting period when for want of a better phrase the Beatles after all the crazy mania years were trying to '' find themselfs '' and George more then the other 3 got off on it more then the others .

Edit- Also like to add that I have some expierence of some drugs when younger ,acid a few times ,speed ,coke and hash so can relate to a lot of whats on discussion here .The acid expierences in particular were something else and as near an out of body expierence I have ever had . I have also had some friends and aquaintinces die as result of 'over indulgence 'which I'm sure we all can relate to and what's more sad is that some of these people would have been the sort who had a lot going for them in life and not the type you think would die as result . However , we all will ...some of us want to experiment and expierence and with everything in life , knowing when to get the balance right ...to slown down ...cut down on ...or if you feel cut out altogether ,it's the individuals choice .

MrStuffins

Nevore wrote: »

http://www.cowboybooks.com.au/html/acidtrip1.html

Take a look, interesting to say the least.

No.6 is........ interesting

mikom

My current view point on drugs and creativity :

If you haven't got the key already, then don't expect certain drugs to open the door for you.
However if you have the key, then certain drugs will apply a liberal shot of oil to the hinges allowing it to swing open much more easily.
Apply too much of that "oil" however and you may be unable to grasp the doorknob to open the door, or even close the door when you need to.

Brain Stroking

MrStuffins wrote: »

Also


Seems slightly contradictory but i'm open to correction.

I do not believe that there is anything totally black and white in this world apart from (and apologies for not adding this before) obvious matters such as paedophilia etc. As regards social issues then we are dealing with a constant shade of grey.
You stated that you were not anti-drugs. I engaged with you on that because that was how you put it. I dont think anyone should be pro or anti drugs because it is a complex issue and coming down in a blanket fashion on the issue is the wrong approach.
So where is my contradiction?

saa

For creative folk if they can take something to reduce anxiety, inhibitions and still function this can help with concept work but then again so can proper meditation.

There are artists, writers and musicians I know who drink on the weekends and occasionally smoke a joint, some smoke if they are doing sketch work or coming up with ideas but never for making work on an ongoing basis

You can make drug friends by socialising but they don't get you anywhere you need to be functioning just like anyone else to work, if you only had to make creative work you could stay on drugs but most creative people are pretty much like business people with the work involved, most of those examples had other people to do the business side for them.

Out of every 20 artists I've come across maybe one or two of them use serious drugs and are partiers or wasting away.
I think these famous folk who use drugs are the exception and most of them would have been successful, drugs don't give you talent or success (but drugs go hand in hand with those things as they're both very difficult to live with) anyway I mean come on we can't apply hendrix, the beatles, or 19th century flaneur's lifestyle can't be compared to us plebs.

carbsy

mikom wrote: »

My current view point on drugs and creativity :

If you haven't got the key already, then don't expect certain drugs to open the door for you.
However if you have the key, then certain drugs will apply a liberal shot of oil to the hinges allowing it to swing open much more easily.
Apply too much of that "oil" however and you may be unable to grasp the doorknob to open the door, or even close the door when you need to.

Brilliant.

mikom

carbsy wrote: »

Brilliant.

I'm not currently under the influence of "oil".

starbelgrade

Drugs are bad.

Hmm'kay.

Latchy

saa wrote: »

I think these famous folk who use drugs are the exception and most of them would have been successful, drugs don't give you talent or success (but drugs go hand in hand with those things as they're both very difficult to live with) anyway I mean come on we can't apply hendrix, the beatles, or 19th century flaneur's lifestyle can't be compared to us plebs.

Many Like the Beatles despite all the hassles of fame , lived very privileged lives which gave them the artistic time to indulge themselfs . The problem for the ordinary plebs who where influenced by above was in trying to live that lifestyle without the wealth to back it up ...although the hippy trail to Marakesh did a thriving business for many years .

saa

Latchy wrote: »

Many Like the Beatles despite all the hassles of fame , lived very privileged lives which gave them the artistic time to indulge themselfs . The problem for the ordinary plebs who where influenced by above was in trying to live that lifestyle without the wealth to back it up ...although the hippy trail to Marakesh did a thriving business for many years .

Ha true but I can't even afford to live as an artist nevermind the drugs :pac:

Saila

mikom wrote: »

My current view point on drugs and creativity :

If you haven't got the key already, then don't expect certain drugs to open the door for you.
However if you have the key, then certain drugs will apply a liberal shot of oil to the hinges allowing it to swing open much more easily.
Apply too much of that "oil" however and you may be unable to grasp the doorknob to open the door, or even close the door when you need to.

nail. on. head. man

especially the bit about finding the door handle again, this is.....the key. unfortunately you wont find out until you open that door if it is one that can be closed again, and thats where the individual comes in as you know some individuals will come back through......some wont

Latchy

saa wrote: »

Ha true but I can't even afford to live as an artist nevermind the drugs :pac:

Exactly and remember all those 'artists ' who turned up invited (then uninvited .....many were just bums out to rob the place ) at Abbey Road offices with their tapes and art ,hoping to be discovered ? It wasn't long till they got the boot and the Beatles company Apple inc soon went down the pan

Although James Taylor and Badfinger did get discovered there

Deus Ex Machina

mikom wrote: »

My current view point on drugs and creativity :

If you haven't got the key already, then don't expect certain drugs to open the door for you.
However if you have the key, then certain drugs will apply a liberal shot of oil to the hinges allowing it to swing open much more easily.
Apply too much of that "oil" however and you may be unable to grasp the doorknob to open the door, or even close the door when you need to.

But is it as simple as having the key or not? Surely there are degrees of creative ability, just as there are degrees of other forms of intelligence, and therefore if drugs oil the hinges of some creative minds, shouldn't they work for others who aren't quite as artistically endowed?

MrStuffins

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

But is it as simple as having the key or not? Surely there are degrees of creative ability, just as there are degrees of other forms of intelligence, and therefore if drugs oil the hinges of some creative minds, shouldn't they work for others who aren't quite as artistically endowed?

no, because they haven't got the key. Drugs don't create genius in the minds of those who don't possess it.

mikom

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

therefore if drugs oil the hinges of some creative minds, shouldn't they work for others who aren't quite as artistically endowed?

To a lesser degree.
Drugs will not give you talent or skill kids.
You are born with that or you learn it.
Drugs will simply lube things up if the dose, setting, and individual are all aligned.
Otherwise forget it.

saa

Latchy wrote: »

Exactly and remember all those 'artists ' who turned up invited (then uninvited .....many were just bums out to rob the place ) at Abbey Road offices with their tapes and art ,hoping to be discovered ? It wasn't long till they got the boot and the Beatles company Apple inc soon went down the pan

Although James Taylor and Badfinger did get discovered there

Pssh being discovered before you die is so lame.

parrai

Deus Ex Machina wrote: »

But is it as simple as having the key or not? Surely there are degrees of creative ability, just as there are degrees of other forms of intelligence, and therefore if drugs oil the hinges of some creative minds, shouldn't they work for others who aren't quite as artistically endowed?

Not necessarily... It depends on the perception of the person involved and being aware of that perception being opened up. Some people can accept this, others cannot and 'freak out'/or derail themselves of the inspiration they are observing.

Latchy

starbelgrade wrote: »

Drugs are bad.

Hmm'kay.

Yes they are and so is alcohol in the wrong hands but I agree , nobody should endorse the taking of drugs to anybody but that goes without saying .

saa wrote: »

Pssh being discovered before you die is so lame.

In Badfingers case ....yes

parrai wrote: »

Not necessarily... It depends on the perception of the person involved and being aware of that perception being opened up. Some people can accept this, others cannot and 'freak out'/or derail themselves of the inspiration they are observing.

Yes ...it's as much about the individuals perception or to quote another old hippie phrase ( and only do so as example ) '' go with the flow '' . The US and British armies as well as other military peformed lsd experiments on some soldiers which resulted in some describing the expierence as brilliant ,others said it was pure hell so it does come down to the persons ability and state of mind at the time to .

Snowie

Latchy wrote: »

I think McStuffins post above sums it for me but however ...

Hmm...well I might have some artistic talents but that's irellevant weather I do or not , I never suffered for my art ...but you are impying that only an 'artist' in whatever genere they are , will have an expierence or viewpoint on something ?

Well yeah its completely relevant have you ever been payed to do something that is creative requires for sight planing and over all hard work?

have you ever had to sit there and right story boards for a project have you ever had to provide proof of research in order to get the go ahead ?

which requires creativity? and then gone and smoked a spliff as well? or you no taken some magic mushrooms ?

did you get the job done?

My source of information comes my own personall expierences in life and from taking some time over the years to learn more in depth about subjects such as which doesn't as you seem to imply , make me some expert but it does make me informed .

wel you sure like to give off the impression you indeed are an expert...

Then I will break down , take from and use that information when it suits .... ya still with me Snowey ? :pac:

No thanks i rather shave my nut sack on a chease grater but thanks for caring.

I don't think I could assume what other abilitys I ,you or anybody else has in this thread when it's people giving humble opinions ie, the ability to express onself ???

Opinions that changed because your original post seemed to very much sound like some sort of knowledgeable and experienced past.

I've been around long enough to not have to use 'phyco babble ' which in your case , is usually a term of phrase somebody drags out in liu of not being quite sure what it is they are trying to say .

or maybe it was easier word to spell then struggling with the spelling of "phsycolist" ?

Scruffles

drugs activate and stimulate different parts so it is possible that they coud be stimulating the creative parts of the brain/neurobiology.
however,not every person involved in creative industries need synthetic stuff like drugs to boost their brains own makeup,people whose mental processing is right brain dominant are the most creative of the bunch,but no one is completely dominant on one side unless they have a non functioning side of the brain.

people with certain illnesses such as bipolar are often said to be more creative,and many of the most successful creative people we know were said to have had bipolar,van gough and ernest hemingway to name some examples,though have never read anything of ernests; only ever knew of him through his love of cats and the polydactyl sub breed that descended from his kittehs.van gough made some unique pictures,its a pity both of them are vastly remembered for how they ended themselves though.

in the past have heard producers say that dance/electronic woud never be any good without drugs,but they can like it or not,some people can produce music, write books,paint pictures etc without the influence of drugs.

Latchy

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

Well yeah its completely relevant have you ever been payed to do something that is creative requires for sight planing and over all hard work?

Well now that you ask , I did spend 3 years in Technical school after I had left primary and the subjects among other things included technical / mechanica drawing ,art and drama which did require a certain amount of presentation but as part of the drama class ,myself and nother 30 guys appeared as extras in an irish film made out in rte studios over a period of 3 days for which we were paid £3 punts ( going rate for child extras then ) I also appeared as a tv extra in a british soap for several years so that's another talent that's sometimes brought in a few quid .

have you ever had to sit there and right story boards for a project have you ever had to provide proof of research in order to get the go ahead ?

Yes ..as part of my English level 1&2 I had to write a 3 page story of some event in my life and present it with paragraphs etc but I had all the detail and research in my head .The level 2 exam I had to pick an event in history , present it then explain in my own words how I came to underststand this event ,it's flaws (if any) and where I got my source of info . I enjoyed what it was I was doing

which requires creativity? and then gone and smoked a spliff as well? or you no taken some magic mushrooms ? did you get the job done?

Well no because by the time I got around to experimenting with spliffs I had left school altogether and wasn't smoking at all on the above project but I'm not sure that would have helped my project or job prospects ...so that was your individual choice .


Edit-why would you wan't to be smoking anything before an important presentation anyway ?

wel you sure like to give off the impression you indeed are an expert...

From a quote in a post ? sure everybody in this thread or any thread can come across as an expert ...even you .

There is an age difference between you and I so that might have something to do with it to

No thanks i rather shave my nut sack on a chease grater but thanks for caring.

Caring iz sharing (flutters eyebrows )

Opinions that changed because your original post seemed to very much sound like some sort of knowledgeable and experienced past.

I'm only expressing and sharing some knowledge and expierence ...same as

or maybe it was easier word to spell then struggling with the spelling of "phsycolist" ?

Or just quicker ...I understand your dyslexia so no worries there man .