Stereotype or truth

Generally speaking, I tend to agree to the headline below, maybe out of personal experience and some historical background of great artists who were utterly crazy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/10622344/Do-weird-people-make-better-artists.html

Originally posted by Tabitha Marshall
Generally speaking, I tend to agree to the headline below, maybe out of personal experience and some historical background of great artists who were utterly crazy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/10622344/Do-weird-people-make-better-artists.html

Weird people make better everything.

Normal people are just filler on this planet.

PS - Kilmt looks like such a hobo in that photo.

Originally posted by darvlay
Weird people make better everything.

Normal people are just filler on this planet.

PS - Kilmt looks like such a hobo in that photo.

"Weird vs. Normal" Percent.... 20/80; 10/90;...?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Weird vs. Normal" Percent.... 20/80; 10/90;...?

Would that percentage correlate with purely artistic people? You know, the kind that cannot do anything else in life but create, whatever medium it may be.

Originally posted by Tabitha Marshall
Would that percentage correlate with purely artistic people? You know, the kind that cannot do anything else in life but create, whatever medium it may be.

Good question... darvlay's emphasis on everything, suggests "purely artistic people".

Originally posted by darvlay
Weird people make better everything.

Normal people are just filler on this planet.

PS - Kilmt looks like such a hobo in that photo.

Originally posted by darvlay
Weird people make better everything.

Normal people are just filler on this planet.

PS - Kilmt looks like such a hobo in that photo.

P.S. Artists don't make judgements. They perform them.

Originally posted by mikelom
P.S. Artists don't make judgements. They perform them.

.... "judgments" of/"performed" for the "normal" people?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Weird vs. Normal" Percent.... 20/80; 10/90;...?

If the ratio of weird to normal gets too high, the labels will need reversing.

Originally posted by Tabitha Marshall
Generally speaking, I tend to agree to the headline below, maybe out of personal experience and some historical background of great artists who were utterly crazy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/10622344/Do-weird-people-make-better-artists.html

As suggested at the end of the article, when it comes to creators of transgressive art, the weirdest creators of such works may be the ones whose own persona is not transgressive. A few are mentioned.

In school, I was in band.

Now those people were nuts.

Originally posted by Suzianne
In school, I was in band.

Now those people were nuts.

Musical Instrument?

Originally posted by JS357
If the ratio of weird to normal gets too high, the labels will need reversing.

Weird: the new normal in some quarters.

Originally posted by Suzianne
In school, I was in band.

Now those people were nuts.

In school, I was just banned.

Originally posted by sonhouse
In school, I was just banned.

Weekly Trumpet Lessons from a retired Swedish Professor of Music (beginning when I was eleven years old) and band.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
.... "judgments" of/"performed" for the "normal" people?

With respect, GB..

They perform as an individuals, usually solo, alone, not in front of others... and that by definition is not 'perfomance', but merely a personal act.

Who ever cares to judge afterwards is up to them. For example, Degas didn't perfom his creatings of apres le bain, or ballet dancers, neither for others nor in their view when doing so (neither did Michaelangelo {Sistine}, etc.. He did it to fulfil his own expression at his time, in his time. He liked to have responses, and judgement of his work, as doesn't everybody, but it wasn't a need. Expression had been made, or performed. This differs from musical expression, which usually warrants or desires momentary feed back - for approval!

Degas or Michaelangelo were normal, or abnormal, is neither here nor there. Thus, judgments about alternative performances are relevant to time only. If one judges a piece of art, does that make one abnormal, when trying to consider or evaluate another person's intent in his time? Trying to evaluate art is not discussive, as it is as personal as much as who believes a wife is beautiful, or not, by others. Is it not?

-m