Fun Stuff > BAND

drugs: visual art versus audible art

(1/15) > >>

Cernunnos:
Being both an artist and music lover, I have noticed a really odd phenomenon. While some artists did drugs, it seems like most rock musicians do. and while i don't know about the forefront of avant garde today, it does seem like Primus, Mr. bungle and the like seem to be very drug- driven, while those who are part of the visual art avant garde are far less likely to be on, say, LSD. for most art people, we seem to draw the line at Marijuana. at least the ones i know. but that's neither here nor there, since i am referring to drug uses that   informs the making of art, not just casual drug use. the recent art movements that i am aware of are based on formal explorations, social issues/politics... that kind of thing. however, ever since the beginning of rock and roll, drugs have been an integral part of inspiring music. whereas, the famous artists, with the exclusion of the pop artists(more or less) did not use them for that. for instance, while elvis was on painkillers, jackson pollock and rothko preferred alcohol as their drug of choice. am i right here? is there really a difference between the way visual artists and audio artists alter their states of consciousness, or am i just crazy?

Kai:
Firstoff, I'd like to mention: Mike Patton and his little Mr. Bungle actually don't do drugs. Crazy, huh? Primus though. I'm not commenting.



And I'm just going to answer this with a little statement: Some people do drugs. Some of these people happen to be artists, musicians, accountants, programmers, truck drivers, etc. Some of them use different drugs than others. Some don't use drugs at all.


Also, on avant garde: Usually you can tell when some artist is on drugs if you're familiar with the stuff; just sort of a natural thing. Some avant garde guys are, some aren't. Same with regular rock, art, whatever.

Cernunnos:
well put. maybe i am crazy then. edited: i guess it just seems like musicians use them more than visual artists. is this a misconception? at the very least they tend to use different ones. but yeah. i really appreciate those artists who don't use drugs at all(Zappa, etc.).

Thrillho:
Some people need drugs to enhance their artistry, some don't. Some people use them entirely separately without it being related to their music in any way, some people's music is harmed by them using drugs separately.

Personally, I find I've got no (decent) songs out of alcohol, but I've got better ones from a lack of it.

However, I think that if anything, visual artistry would benefit more from drugs because you could paint the visions you got on LSD. However, at the same time, I think visual artistry has much more of a requirement for having creativity in the first place and not NEEDING drugs to be able to paint something great, for example.

Misereatur:
Some artists use drugs to explore parts of their mind and psyche so they would be able to express themselfs better through art. Altough, some artists take drugs for entirly wrong reasons and destroy everything they create (40's-50's Bebop artists come to mind. Where it was "acceptable" to be a junky. Although most of them were clean during recordings) . You have to understand that diffarent people react diffarent to drugs (MJ included). So, while one artist benifits from the occasional use of a certin drug, it might be devastating for another artist.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page