From: QueeneMUSE@aol.com
Date: Thu Sep 30 1999 - 13:56:57 MDT
In a message dated 9/30/1999 11:41:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bdelaney@infinitefaculty.org writes:
<<
Further, is sublimation a requirement of art? If it is, will
science's ability to give us direct fulfillment of our needs
eliminate art? >>
Actually, the reason i didn;t coment wasn't your oneliner-- it was funny at
first. I laughed out loud, but the reason I have nothing to say about
sublimation causing art is pretty simple:
I don't believe in it.
I never bought that, but I had to study that stuff in college. And I have
Jungian therapist pals who believe in myth and collective consciousness too,
and that also seems sketchy.. but more appealing... dreams, etc...
Anywayz........ there's no evidence in my personal experience that we
artists sublimate in order to create. I think that in Freud's time, Victorian
times, that may have held credence, I dunno, but i was a creature without
that social pressure to conform- and/or sublimate my desires, I have pretty
much done as I please all my life, and I still create. So I didn't comment
becasue I really have no opinion.
I do think Balzac was a detail freak, and drank way way WAY too much coffee..
but other than that...
(I will say that when i am painting and it's going really well and I'm doing
good work, it does feel very much like a tantric version of sexual union. But
that's just good NRG flow, happens in bodybuilding too)
Nadia
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:21 MST