Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
I am not sure that this statement is correct. Especially because I am not an adept of any spiritual practices. I would like to note that the author does not have any scientific confirmation of the relationship between abstinence and fasting with creative potential.
Speculatively, I understand that need is the mother of all inventions. I think there is room for creativity in both agriculture and manufacturing. Improving agricultural crops and production technologies will certainly lead to the fight against hunger. I say this because by creativity I mean a type of activity aimed at creating qualitatively new objects and ideas, regardless of the field of professional activity. But I don't think it's right to link hunger and fine arts directly.
The expression itself became widespread after the film by Roland Bykov “Tallant must be hungry”, although a similar meaning was found in Chekhov, Balzac, O. Wilde and many others. Here in Q (https://yandex.ru/q/question/otkuda_vyrazhenie_khudozhnik_dolzhen_byt_497b4eed/?utm_source=yandex&utm_medium=wizard&answer_id=0fba2224-bbff-4ca0-9ce2-eed26e48f577#0fba2224-bbff-4ca0-9ce2-eed26e48f577 expats such as Arthiv and Diana Dzhangveladze celebrate Henri Murge's collection Scenes from the Life of Bohemia, created in 1847, which romanticizes the poverty of artists. It tells the story of four friends involved in art, who are struggling to live under the motto ” the artist must be hungry, and if the money comes, you need to spend it in an hour to become hungry again.” Gradually, by the end of the story, they begin to realize that this may not be the right approach. At the same time, Arthiv writes that “For example, the great Michelangelo lived very modestly, often complained about the lack of money, and in one of his poems he wrote that art made him “an old and poor servant of others.” However, current research shows that in terms of the current exchange rate, his fortune would be $ 47 million.” I would like to add that Aivazovsky, who was a very successful commercial artist, lived richly, and was engaged in charity work, which did not prevent him from entering the world archive of great fine art. Maybe someone really does not work well with a full stomach, but it is wrong to transfer this to everyone. So it's not a law.
I can only agree to professional hunger, when there is no time to do creative work (a lot of orders, other routine work), but I really want to. Then, scrolling through the pictures in your head a thousand times, thinking about the idea (you don't have your head occupied only with routine, you don't think about shaving only during shaving, for example))) and then, in a short moment of physical opportunity to fix your thoughts, you can really “shoot”.
And I am very sensitive to the food itself and recommend it to everyone. Nutrition is an important component of our healthy life. Youth, immunity and longevity depend on it… but this is a completely different answer to a completely different question. Just to sum up: more energy for life, live longer – create more (without any quotes)))))
I'm not an expert in such matters, so I'll just give you my opinion. In principle, a person in affluence acquires a notorious comfort zone, is lazy. A person who is (well, very roughly speaking) “hungry” – looking for ways to satisfy hunger, earn a living. In relation to the artist – the artist will make more effort to create something masterpiece, if only just so that you can not be poor. But I think that this expression should not be taken literally. I also heard something about how hungry people, despite being irritable and angry, have great creative potential. But overeating is more harmful to brain activity.
Because it's not true. A hungry person can't think about anything but food, so what kind of creativity can we talk about here? Here is a quote from Somerset Maugham's book “The Burden of Human Passions”, which deals with the topic of artists and hunger.
This is a myth. Remnants of primitive thinking from previous eras. If you are an idea generator, neither wealth nor poverty will change you. A genius cannot be changed by any external conditions. A real artist can earn a million dollars and spend it on the construction of a garden in the center of his native city. But if he does not do this and lives widely on this money, this does not mean that he will not write a single masterpiece again. Roughly speaking: luxury life(or total poverty) is not connected with art at all! No one knows what high idealism is associated with. So far, neither the area in the brain that is responsible for writing a verse/song/picture of td, nor the gene in the DNA that could be responsible for genius, has been found. So neither satiety nor hunger is a hindrance to a genius, but it will not help an ordinary artist to become a genius)
Well, hungry-not hungry, and I once observed fasts… From the beginning of the post in two weeks, the head works differently. Such clarity and ease of thought, such inspiration and beautiful solutions and creative growth. Just a refusal of animal products and moderation in food. So, here it is.
there is a certain spiritual principle, according to which the flesh is a kind of barrier to the world of spirits, the world of ideas. It is easiest to represent this metaphysically as the difference between an eagle and a pig, where a pig can denote the full life of the flesh, and an eagle – the high life of the spirit. To fly, you need wings and you need lightness. What kind of masterpiece can a pig create? Well, except that one that will be a masterpiece for the same figuratively speaking “pigs”. Masterpieces are born out of the spirit. By the way, the word genius is translated as spirit.�
16 Woe to you, O land, when your king is a young man, and when your princes eat early!
17 It is good for you, O land, when your king is of a noble family, and your princes eat in season, for refreshment, and not for satiety.
(Eccl.10:16-17)
it would seem that what does it have to do with when and how the governing countries eat ? However, it is metaphysically shown here that normal food managers only reinforce themselves in order to fulfill their mission to govern the country as best as possible. Conversely, bad managers are only concerned with their own enjoyment, they are in power for their own sake, and not for the sake of others. The feeling of hunger is a kind of sacrifice that a person makes as a payment for access to the ideal world, the world of ideas and spirits and its transmission to this world in the form of ideas, masterpieces, teachings, etc.�
“Ostap hadn't eaten anything since yesterday. Therefore, his eloquence was extraordinary.
Vasyukin chess players listened to him with filial love. Ostap was carried away. He felt a surge of new energy and chess ideas.”
http://www.youtube.com/embed/Jzyok6uYnxQ?wmode=opaque
Because satiety and comfort in some lead to laziness, while in others, on the contrary, it can even stimulate creative activity, but it will be superficial. This is the point: hungry means rather not just “did not eat” or “temporary difficulties with money,” but as an indicator of poverty in general, the tragedy of life. The artist, like any other creator, puts his inner world into his work. Many great artists have translated their suffering into their own works, which is why they are so deep and beautiful, so personal. And if you are satisfied with everything, then your work will speak only of contentment. Such a style in art as Rococo is very indicative – luxury and pretentiousness were valued there, from the point of view that it cannot be too much. It has taken root very well in the royal families of France. I personally think that this is bad form, arrogance.
I will not say that I directly agree with this quote, as well as with the statement about the “hungry artist”, but there is a lion's share of truth in this. Still, satiety didn't make da Vinci any less great. You need to understand that the formula implies not only your rich inner world, but also naked talent as well. You need to be able to draw, and often be an innovator.
Have you ever wondered why there are no new van Goghs, Rembrandts, Monets, etc.? What do the great masterpieces of our time look like? And here it is:
Now it's not even too fashionable to draw – we have all the creators of installations and street art. Modern art is not bad, but it is too far from masterpieces, it is too much focused on money and HYPE.