The Unkown Border of Creativity and Madness.
  • SethRy
    152
    Just about two years ago; Apple released a phone without having a headphone jack. This news has separated views and opinions of Apple users in regards of it's removal - is it creativity, or madness?

    What separates the concept of Art to Filth? Innovation to Absurdity?

    Numerous Artists have different talents, Van Gogh, Beethoven, plenty of them. The reason they were outstanding is because they constructed a form of Art that's unique, yet not too unique to be just absurd. Unsurprisingly, the question of creativity to madness has no definitive answer - it was never one being opposite to each other, it was always the two intertwining together.

    But if we look upon these two words, that is yet, two completely different things, there should be a distinction. There should be a reason why one is superior to the one that's inferior.

    French Philosopher Blaise Pascal argued that imagination is the reason for our decisiveness; we are able to picture abstract concepts like justice, love, and most controversially, art. Deep inside us, is that imagination, that personal oneness of the mind that is arguably separate from the body. That imagination consist of the darkest thoughts you and I as individuals ever stepped on - you could be thinking this attempt to discussion does not make any sense, repetitive, and useless.

    That imagination constructs the separation of art and madness individually, because our decisiveness separates them both. Yet we only used imagination to find distinction of both, but not to definitively give a logical answer.

    What does isolate creativity from the other? What deems something creative and not absurd?
    SethRy Options
  • Brett
    3k
    What separates the concept of Art to Filth? Innovation to Absurdity? — SethRy

    At the time if conception, maybe nothing.
    Brett Options
  • SethRy
    152
    ↪Brett


    That is insensible. If there were no difference, then a person who is opinionated that pedophilia is an art, has it's validity about creativity and logically, it is considered to be an art.
    SethRy Options
  • Brett
    3k
    ↪SethRy


    Well your op is really about the border of creativity and madness. There I see a connection. You throw in art and filth and I can’t follow you down that path. That’s just fuel for pointless arguing.
    Brett Options
  • Brett
    3k
    ↪SethRy

    Actually your point might be helpful. An artist might do a painting that is pedophelia. At the moment of creation the artist may not think about the offensiveness of the subject. It’s only in the cooling down of that process that the artist becomes aware of the potential offensiveness of the work, how it will be perceived by others.
    Brett Options
  • I like sushi
    4.3k
    French Philosopher Blaise Pascal argued that imagination is the reason for our decisiveness; we are able to picture abstract concepts like justice, love, and most controversially, art. Deep inside us, is that imagination, that personal oneness of the mind that is arguably separate from the body. That imagination consist of the darkest thoughts you and I as individuals ever stepped on - you could be thinking this attempt to discussion does not make any sense, repetitive, and useless. — SethRy

    If you could explain this more fully I’d appreciate it. I don’t get what is being said at all (esp. part in bold).

    I do understand that art does serve to help us explore inner emotions - maybe you’re talking about something allng the lines of Aristotle’s concept of “Cartharsis” (a concept over which there has been varied opinions about in academia for some time).
    I like sushi Options
  • SethRy
    152
    ↪Brett


    If cooled down then the concept of pedophilia is refined, therefore not the maximum idea is portrayed. Pedophilia, unless portrayed to convey a message, is just disgusting. I am confused I am sorry.

    I do understand the argument of the correlation of these two things despite their antonymous characteristics. But that idea of those two words being antonyms, has to possess a definitive disparity - because if not, then people wouldn't be able to distinguish art from things that are not artistic. People know pain because they experience pleasure — in fact, the understanding of degrees in everything came from the combination of British empiricism and rationalism, although it wasn't identified like that before.
    SethRy Options
  • SethRy
    152
    ↪I like sushi


    I guess what I am implying is that the presence of our dark thoughts is only known by ourselves alone. No seriously, nobody knows the most peculiar, abhorrent, and treacherous thoughts that contain our imagination. How does that correlate to art and madness? is that the selection of our imagination is evidence that art and madness has a disparity. When we think of madness, we are able to isolate that directly from creativity and artistic preferences — putting them to words is the difficult process.
    SethRy Options
  • SethRy
    152
    Furthermore, we know it's complete madness when we acknowledge the fact that saying our mad thoughts out loud would cause repercussions, let alone building it to structure; into something we believe is art. That bringing our thoughts to life can be really immoral, that influences our actions, like hunger drives us to greed. Some can be fundamentally artistic, like a poem against world war, supports art morally.
    SethRy Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

Sign In Create Account

Categories