The Affect Of Drugs On Art

[Dan Bidewell]

I understand, and can follow, the Objectivist argument that taking drugs for recreational reasons is denial of reality. I am not really (for time being anyway) interested in that issue.

I would like to know what other people think about whether it is right or wrong for us to appreciate the work of people who produced works of arts while under the influence of drugs.

For example, at the moment I am listening to Kate Bush's new album. Apparently, she is the biggest stoner since Cheech and Chong and half of the album was recorded through a purplish haze of morocan hashish (please don't sue me Kate if you are reading this - as I aid, it is only apparently. Besides, you won't get much off me, I'm broke).

The thing is - the whole album is amazing to listen to.

And there are lots of other works of very good art that have been produced under the influence of drugs. By appreciating the art, are we (or perhps should I say, am I) not condoning the drugs?

[gnargtharst]

I certainly don't think you condone drug use by appreciating the art. Perhaps some people lose inhibitions (artistic inhibitions) while on drugs, producing art they probably should have been able to produce sober, but couldn't because of various forms of repression/conformity/etc.

(Make sure to consider, though, all the horrible "art" that is produced while the artist is on drugs. Not to mention all the even worse stuff that never even sees the light of day because it's so bad.)

[BurgessLau]

And there are lots of other works of very good art that have been produced under the influence of drugs. By appreciating the art, are we (or perhps should I say, am I) not condoning the drugs?

A suggestion: This discussion might be more productive if you define your terms. Examples are: good (art), drugs, condoning, and appreciating. Further, are you an Objectivist? That is, do you agree with Ayn Rand's philosophical descriptions and definition of art? (Your Viewing Profile doesn't directly say whether you are an Objectivist, but it does possibly hint that you reject Objectivist ethics. Is that true? If so, do you disagree with other areas as well, areas that might be fundamental to this discussion?)

Past experience tells me that defining such terms -- which "everyone knows" -- may uncover some leads to a solution to the problem you are facing in your life.

Edited November 25, 2005 by BurgessLau

[DavidOdden]

For example, at the moment I am listening to Kate Bush's new album.

I've never heard her music: perhaps you can point to some audio samples. I read some of the lyrics which were published, and they are utterly boring, but that's par for the course IMOO. Can you show us some concrete examples of this outstanding drug-induced art? I'm not familiar with these works.

[Dan Bidewell]

A suggestion: This discussion might be more productive if you define your terms. Examples are: good (art), drugs, condoning, and appreciating. Further, are you an Objectivist?

I read the Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged as pieces of fiction - with no idea to their philosophy - and was blown away by them. Since then I have read more Ayn Rand, and I have been utterly convinced by her ideas. I must say, some of the other stuff I have read (Leonard Peikoff) has been a little beyond me, as in I don't understand it. But I feel sure I undertood all of VOS and agreed wholeheartedly. So, I don't think I could call myself an Objectivist, but I would like to become one!

My definition of art is anything artificial that makes us think or feel. So a tree is not art. But if man moves that tree into a room then it becomes art. How good it is depends on how much it makes us think or feel. So a tree in a room is pretty bad art - but a tree in a room decorated in such a way as to make us think or feel would be better art (a bad example in the run-up to Christmas!)

So, Art under the influence - Baudelaire and Rimbaud - they both loved a good absinthe with all its hallucenogenic qualities. I don't really like the Beatles, but lots of people do, and their later stuff (before Yoko made John go to bed for a week) was pretty heavily influence by drugs. And then there's the Austrian painter Schiele, and van Gogh.

I am afraid I cannot point to any audio files of Kate Bush - I am not IT literate enough!

And by condoning - by appreciating (as in saying "Oh, I really like this"), are we not justifying the means to the ends?

[Ariana Binetta]

I would like to know what other people think about whether it is right or wrong for us to appreciate the work of people who produced works of arts while under the influence of drugs....

And there are lots of other works of very good art that have been produced under the influence of drugs. By appreciating the art, are we (or perhps should I say, am I) not condoning the drugs?

I hope I'm not missing Dan's point but...Aren't drugs everywhere? Haven't drugs and art--whether creating or appreciating--gone together since time immemorial? Isn't the whole human body itself a vast and powerful drug manufacturer?

From tiredness to sleepiness to day-dreaming to meditation to exercise to song-and-dance to sex--Don't people experience altered consciousness constantly? It keeps life new and fresh! I think the impact of hormones, chemicals, and altered consciousness is continuous. So, yes, drug-takers--within certain limits, obviously--can make and appreciate fine art.

[DavidOdden]

Aren't drugs everywhere?

Sure, under one understanding of "drug" -- see Burgess's question about what one might mean by "drugs". Contextually speaking, "drugs" refers to stuff like heroin, meth, crack, speed, LSD, cannabinoids, PCP, ecstacy etc. And not aspirin or Nyquil. It may well be that some artists are incapable of producing good works without a chemical crutch, because they are too inhibited, and if so, tha is sad. There are aspects of existence that probably cannot be grasped without chemical assistance, namely things of the type "What if my sensory apparatus worked differently", the most easily replicable being the discontinuous motion syndrom arising from a joint or two; or, tasting blue, which most people can't do (but a few with strange wiring can do). The question, as far as I'm concerned, comes down to quality. In its day, Hendrix psychodelic riffs were entertaining, but there's a limit. I would say that based on the evidence of the music alone, Ecstacy completely destroys all artistic ability, though I recognise that opinions may vary. "Persistence of Memory" is a fine painting which does not replicate an actual event, showing that good (albeit odd) art is possible without drugs, if you are imaginative enough.

[Lemuel]

For example, at the moment I am listening to Kate Bush's new album.

... half of the album was recorded through a purplish haze of morocan hashish...

The thing is - the whole album is amazing to listen to.

Not to go off topic, but bear in mind that the recording portion is only a part of what makes a full album. The songs could have been written without the influence of marijuana, or maybe they were. The producer and engineers have a lot to do with how an album sounds, too. Sometimes parts are completely replaced after the sessions end (even without the performers knowing it).

By appreciating the art, are we (or perhps should I say, am I) not condoning the drugs?

It depends on whether or not what you're appreciating is the product of those drugs. Being a musician, and having used marijuana in the past, my experience tells me that her music may be intended for "greater appreciation" while high. Pot loosens inhibitions, and can be a (very) temporary substitute for focus, but it doesn't have the same properties as drugs which produce hallucinations.

As a player, the muscle-relaxing, euphoric properties can loosen you up and make you think you're playing better. And maybe you are, but nothing a refreshing power nap and a long, hot hand-washing can't achieve. Thing is, when pot wears off, so does that artificial focus, and sleepiness sets in. Using more doesn't really help, so perpetual grogginess is the default "mood", and being "creative" is less desirable than junk food or stupid TV. (Hence, my drug of choice now is psychotic quantities of coffee.)

But, I'm only speaking of my experiences with music and weed, and it's all pretty moot. What I'd ask is:

- Could Kate Bush's, or anyone's, music be better if they weren't in a "purplish haze of hashish"?

- Would the material - the lyrics, melodic structures, harmonic complexity - be of a nature more suitable to a person of reason if they were sober? (I know it's only rock'n'roll, but that doesn't mean it should be devoid of some intelligence and sophistication.)

- Since all art is a "selective recreation of reality based on an artist's value-judgements", how would you describe Kate Bush's sense of life? Is she sad, content, exultant, poignent, depressed, existential? What relationship could that have to such vehement use of marijuana?

I won't say that you're promoting/condoning drug use by enjoying music made by potheads, but I will say that there's probably something even more beautiful out there more worthy of your enjoyment.