Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rationality And The Creative Mind

Rate this topic


Three Day Drunk

Recommended Posts

Dear all,

As a newcomer to this particular forum I have stumbled across statements which set my brain buzzing. As a result I have a question for all of you. Does the private conduct of a creative person matter in relation to their work? I have seen this subject treated with varying degrees of seriousness in various forums, with all the usual suspects in attendance - Wagner and his anti-semitism, Woody Allen's marriage to his ex-wife's adopted daughter, etc., etc., etc.

As an Objectivist forum this place rightly champions reality and reason (so sayeth the banner), but what is the general opinion of people who, despite falling well short of these ideals in their own lives, still manage to produce great art?

To start with a specific example - Peter Sellers. He could be superstitious, childish, petty, vindictive and utterly disloyal. He developed a pathological fear of the colour purple, believing it to be the colour of death, he cheated on and hit at least two of his wives, he double-crossed friends. Even among his friends opinion seems divided between 'a bit of a shit' and 'a lot of a shit'. Still, he remains one of the greatest comic actors to have stepped in front of a camera. What would Dr. Strangelove have been without him? Or Lolita? Having witnessed the attempts of others we already know what the Pink Panther films would have been without him, dreadful.

Let us be honest, acting is not an entirely rational process. It is about worming your way into the mind of a character, becoming someone else. The very things that many an Objectivist would scorn in Sellers - his lack of identity, neurosis and rampant insecurity - were key in making him the actor he was. Kubrick was once asked, "who is Peter Sellers?"; response - "There is no such person." Dramatic perhaps, but it helped to produce great performances, without which all the technical trickery of the movie set and the editing suite amounts to nothing.

There are plenty of other examples, however the above is at least a start. So, what do we think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an Objectivist forum this place rightly champions reality and reason (so sayeth the banner), but what is the general opinion of people who, despite falling well short of these ideals in their own lives, still manage to produce great art?

It isn't a matter of opinion. It is a fact that some people have knowledge of philosophy and choose consciously or erringly, not to act on that knowledge.

I know many musicians who exercise amazing levels of artistic prowess and understand the very personal importance of art that are extreme religionists or heavy liberals.

Someone may have the knowledge necessary to create beautiful art but do not make the connection that some of the basic philosophical principles can be applied to life and morality.

As far as people who do not exhibit levels of integrity comparable to that of Ayn Rand, well we all must recognize our virtues and attempt to rid ourselves of irrationality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you are asking. I don't think anyone here would argue that a person with a tragic life (or even a tragic sense of life) couldn't be capable of having talent and creativity. Irrationality and creativity are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the private conduct of a creative person matter in relation to their work?

First, I don't accept your characterization of Peter Sellers as a great comic. But, setting that aside, I have comments and questions. In answer to your main question, quoted above, my response is: Matter to whom?

Does it matter to me as a viewer? No. An actor's private behavior affects my judgment of him as a whole person, but does not detract from an objective assessment of his acting abilities.

Perhaps you mean, does an actor's private behavior affect his acting ability? Yes, to some extent, over the long term. For example, if an actor's favorite pastime is getting drunk and passing out, then eventually that will destroy him physically -- thus affecting his acting. An even clearer example is the leisure activity of playing Russian Roulette with a loaded weapon. Eventually his choice of leisure activity will kill him, thus somewhat damaging his career.

Let us be honest, acting is not an entirely rational process.  It is about worming your way into the mind of a character, becoming someone else.
Really? Why do you think so? In the tiny bit of acting I have done -- and based on conversations with actors -- I would say acting is pretending to be someone else. Perhaps you meant something other than what you have actually said.

The very things that many an Objectivist would scorn in Sellers - his lack of identity, neurosis and rampant insecurity - were key in making him the actor he was.

If you mean his neurosis made him a great actor, then what evidence do you have for your statement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a newcomer to this particular forum I have stumbled across statements which set my brain buzzing.

Careful there, Drunk. If you're stumbling, might want to lay off the hooch for a while. And I'll take your word for it that it's the stimulating ideas you've read here that are the cause of your "buzz." 134.gif

The very things that many an Objectivist would scorn in Sellers - his lack of identity, neurosis and rampant insecurity - were key in making him the actor he was.

It's a pretty big logical leap to attribute a person's creative/artistic ability to his neuroses. Assuming the portrait you paint of Sellers is true, I'd say it's much more likely that he was successful despite his problems, not because of them.

I'm a full-time actor in Hollywood, and like most other creative types, I know that the majority of people have absolutely no idea what my professional life actually consists of. My specific niche is voiceover, and my specialty is creating original characters. (You can read about and hear samples of my work here.)

The most common misconception I encounter is that my job consists of little more than having fun, and cashing in on my "talent." While I certainly do have a lot of fun, most people would be shocked to learn just how hard I work, how many hours I put in, and how much of my time is spent doing entirely unglamorous clerical and business tasks (which, incidentally, I don't get paid for).

But even when I'm in the studio — and mind you, that accounts for a very small percentage of my time — the demands are often sizable. Recording costs can add up to several thousand dollars an hour, deadlines tend to be extremely tight, clients can be cranky and difficult to please, and last but not least, my performances often have to be of such over-the-top energy, and have to be sustained over such a long period of time, that a recording session can leave me physically, emotionally (and vocally!) exhausted.

Most people are completely ignorant of the technical and business aspects of any creative endeavor. People think art is all about inspiration, native ability, and "expressing yourself." My own voiceover students are often stunned to discover how being in the booth — with headphones on, a script in front of you, taking direction from someone on the other side of the glass — is nothing at all like riffing at a family gathering. Talent is certainly a great thing to have, but it's really just a start. There are many skills an actor has to master before he's ready to work on a professional level.

As technical as my line of work is, film acting is probably the most technical kind of acting. If you've ever watched a movie being made, you've no doubt wondered to yourself, "How is this going to end up as anything coherent, let alone good?" Film shoots are long, grueling and boring; scenes are almost never filmed in order — dialogue is re-written (and re-re-written) moments before the actors are to deliver it — there are a thousand and one things that can go wrong on a set, and do — lights blow, cameras jam, power generators die, Mama Nature decides to sprinkle some of her magic at the most inconvenient time — and, of course, shots have to be endlessly re-taken because an actor didn't hit his mark, or flubbed his line, or the camera moved late, or a moth flew into the shot, or an airplane went overhead . . .

I'm not trying to be negative toward the acting profession; I'm simply saying that the degree of dedication, focus and hard work required to be an actor make it a poor career choice for people who are literally crazy.

That said, I do think there could be some correlation between neurosis and creativity. It's somewhat of a half-baked theory, but it might be that a certain type of neurotic, feeling out of touch with the world and with other people in general, is much less likely to be concerned about the opinions, standards and beliefs of others — he's more apt to "march to his own drummer" and to spend time alone, in his own mind and in his own world — which can, in a certain limited sense, be said to be conducive to creativity. (Still, as any psychiatrist knows, most psychological problems make people more dependent rather than independent: neurosis will be never be a substitute for genuine psychological individualism.)

Ultimately, every artist is involved in a re-creation of some aspect of reality, a fact perhaps most immediately observable in the field of acting. To the extent that his work is meaningful, an artist has to be in good cognitive contact with the world around him, as well as his own inner life — something neurotics fall notoriously short in.

Kubrick was once asked, "who is Peter Sellers?"; response - "There is no such person." Dramatic perhaps, but it helped to produce great performances . . . [Acting] is about worming your way into the mind of a character, becoming someone else.

I think this is a major misconception about acting. Rather, it's part-true, and part myth.

I could be wrong, but I think I know what it means to be fully immersed in a role. The characters I play tend to be extreme and all over the map; very few are anything like my real voice or personality. That said, as much as I enjoy throwing my whole self into a part, while I'm performing I'm never not conscious of being me. No matter how much I may be feeling the character or "into" a scene, even in an improv situation, I'm always aware in some significant way that I'm playing a part, doing a job.

And more, I don't think it's possible to act without a good sense of the fact that you're not what you're pretending to be. To truly "become" the character in this sense would mean to lose the awareness of the technical aspects of your craft. After all, real-life people don't recite scripted lines (and pause so that others can say their lines), they don't have to hit marks and remember blocking — they don't have to be careful not to turn away from the camera, or speak too softly, or pause for audience laughter, or re-do a scene for the twentieth time, incorporating a director's notes and feedback into their performance . . .

When actors discover that the mystique of the master thespian obliterating his self-awareness as he immerses himself in a role is largely nonsense, it can be a tremendously freeing experience, with sometimes miraculous results. In most cases, it helps actors to get more into their roles — because they no longer aspire to an irrational and impossible standard.

When my students complain that they're not fully "feeling it," I tell them that their feelings don't really matter; only ours (the audience's) do. Some actors, a certain type, will look at me with horror and angrily disagree. For others, it's like a light bulb going off, and they often go on to create some truly exciting performances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
But neither Wagner nor Woody Allen was a good artist, according to Objectivist aesthetics.

Could you please explain that statement? I personally find Wagner's music very uplifting, despite his personal biases. I haven't watched many Woody Allen films but I find him rather funny. What particularly about these two artists doesn't resonate with Objectivist aesthetics?

Edited by Myself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...