I hate it when people go on about things they don't even know about. Put succinctly: Cubism =/= mental illness; one's artistic style (regardless of whether you like it or not) is not exactly linked to prescence of a mental illness. Picasso did not have one, thank you very much, i looked it up. If any work could be said to be touched by a mind in a mood, i would have assumed it would be his Blue Period pieces. Just because his style evolved the way it did does not mean that he had a mental illness. And do not mention "that artist who painted only haystacks" as if there was something wrong with them. If i am correct in assuming that it may have been Monet, hm, let's think, they're called studies, though they're also finished paintings. He was studying the way light affected things at different times of day, because that was his style, that was his "thing": he worked with light. He wanted to capture the impression of something in his stroke style & his use of light. Just because someone paints multiple pictures of a haystack, or of the same cathedral does not mean they have a mental illness. Or, if they do, it doesn't mean that that is how it manifests. I fail to see how painting haystacks shows signs of a mental illness. Oh, & for the record, Luther had 95 Thesis, not 42. And why did he have to be manic to put them up on the church? Why couldn't he just have been fed up, plain & simple, & finally decided to actually do something about how he felt?
I'm not saying that people, especially, it seems, a lot of "creative" people, aren't affected by mental illnesses (everybody's going to think of van Gogh first), & i sure as hell am not trying to make people who do have mental illnesses out to be anything negative. As in, i'm not trying to say "these people were not sick" because i think that would somehow taint their name, the way people seem to think a suicidal death would somehow taint the name of Meriwether Lewis. Honestly, if someone thinks that mental illness & suicide is blot, a crime, a sin (i think that idea pisses me off the most), i am sure as hell not going to listen to that person because to me, they don't fucking understand & are being ridiculous fools. What i am saying is no, these people didn't have mental illnesses, & please shut up because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I hate to sound elistist, but i have been doing the art thing for a real long time now, so i've kind of learned just a few little things along the way. Like how, actually, Picasso seems to have been rather egotistical & got pissy at some guy for doing cubism too, if i'm not mistaken, so couldn't you then make the argument that that was why his style evolved the way it did? Not a mental illness, a natural evolution of a very abstract kind of art style. IMAGINE THAT.
Just. Really. I didn't open my mouth to correct her, even on the Martin Luther thing, because i'm a coward; i just ended up seething silently. It frustrated me beyond belief, though. She was so wrong & generalizing so much & crap that i felt like snapping. It would be like me pretending i can explain daily life in mediaeval Muslim Spain or something. Or me pretending like i know anything of composers, or playwrights, or authors. Yes, famous & creative people more often than not seem to have mental illnesses, which is obviously going to influence their work, but not everyone does/did. Don't mistake little eccentricities or just style for manic-depression, don't assume. Actually inform yourself.
It just aggravated me. And i'm tired & stressed & moody, so the irritation is magnified.
- Mood:
Rant
and then i realized....
Miserable
Seasonal
Sympathy
