'I am not a human being, inside. I am other thing. I do not know what I am.'

In Your elusive creative genius (2009), author Elizabeth Gilbert gives one of the most popular TedTalks ever. It's not difficult to see why. In a time where fame and fortune are revered and sought after to extreme lengths, I can't help but think it's just nice to see a successful and well-known artist (of any kind) displaying humility. Self-deprecation, even. But therein lies Gilbert's point, exactly. During the talk she discusses the ancient Roman belief that artists were not responsible for their own creativity. It was thanks – at least partly – to a divine, mystical non-human entity living in the walls of the creative space, the 'genius' inspiring the artist with its own ideas. Therefore, an artist could not take credit for the success or failure of their work, at least not wholly. She raises this point to encourage a culture where contemporary artists and creative's can distance themselves from the pain that that success or failure may bring. It may seem far-fetched. But it resonated with me, personally, in a huge way. I do not consider myself an 'artist'. I believe that I have artistic tendencies, sure, and feel like I have a creative mind, but would never categorise myself this way simply because of the lack of artistic work I have produced. I hope to change that one day, and I certainly hope that by then we are all adopting this philosophy even a little by then. I am not alone in the pain I have felt in the past at not being able to produce a certain piece of creative work. I am not alone in the pain I have felt to proceed something 'successful'. There is something important to be learned here, and I for one am extremely glad I was given the opportunity.

'To be an artist is to be a victim, because if you don't do what you want, you die,' (Interview, 2007). On the other hand, we have artists such as Alejandro Jodorowsky, quoted, who appear to not really give a hoot what the reception to his work is. He creates because he simply couldn't live not creating. While many artists may feel this way, it takes a strong mind to create without care. What Jodorowsky does have in mind, it seems, is the experience his art can give to a consumer, to give 'an experience like LSD gives an experience'. Jodorowsky wants to make a picture than can 'open the mind of the person who sees that'. I guess in a sense, a film that can do this would be termed 'successful' for Jodorowsky (and thusly, a 'failure' if not) but the pain that goes along with either result appears to not exist in his world. While I found it somewhat difficult to understand what Jodrowsky was getting at in this interview, I couldn't help but wonder whether he is brilliant and operates on a separate plain, or a pretentious weirdo using this confusion he creates to his advantage. Discussing the fact that our mere existence, 'to have hands, to have fingers is weird', and using the changing definition of the 'telephone' to explain his intermediary practice as an artist, could really go either way. But in the end, does it really matter? Does it matter whether or I, or anyone else, thinks that this man could possibly be a hack if the work that he produces is enjoyable? In the spirit of going easier on artists, I say no. 

[title quote taken from Alejandro Jodorowsky Interview, 2007)]

REFERENCE LIST:

Elizabeth Gilbert: Your elusive creative genius, 2009, YouTube, TedTalks, 9 February, retrieved 2 April 2013, < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86x-u-tz0MA >

Alejandro Jodorowsky Interview, 2007, YouTube, BBCCollective, 8 August, retrieved 2 April 2013 < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WstYV_soyMw >