Can a "genius" or a "real artist" be a decent pers
Posted 08 January 2003 - 11:21 PM
Posted 09 January 2003 - 03:41 AM
Posted 09 January 2003 - 05:36 AM
Posted 09 January 2003 - 06:11 AM
As to whether a genius can be a decent person, absolutely! Not that they all are, however ;) I have known some who really do not have people skills at all, but are frighteningly brilliant or brilliant in what they do artisically. It seems to me that sometimes the genius aspect of what they do does not always apply to other aspects of their lives, which is why I wonder if the two terms of genius and real artist are that related. Does being a genius in terms of one thing, like choreography or music or performing artist or painting, make one a genius?
Posted 09 January 2003 - 06:43 AM
Many geniuses/real artists are incredibly focused on their area of genius/art.
This may mean that they often prefer to pursue their passion at the expense of acting "decently".
As an example, I am reminded of a passage from Maria Tallchief's autobiography, where she decided to separate from her husband because she enjoyed dancing more than being a wife (not that this means that she wasn't a perfectly nice person, just that she put artistic accomplishment ahead of her personal life at the time).
Posted 09 January 2003 - 11:36 AM
However, focusing on one thing with great intensity can lead to less-than-spectacular social skills and a certain lack of consideration. But that can be true of any demanding job that requires 24/7 attention, and "genius" doesn't necessarily enter into it.
Posted 09 January 2003 - 12:50 PM
Posted 09 January 2003 - 01:09 PM
I remember when I first started going to Manhattan School of Music when I was 14, I was told to accept that I would be yelled at or humiliated by my teachers, coaches or conductors. This was called artistic temperament. Later, when I started at the New York Times as a copy boy, I was told that editors or writers might yell at me and take out their frustrations at me because working at a newspaper was very stressful and these were the top editors in the world. It was accepted and I accepted it. But that's crap. By now, I've come across brilliant people, geniuses, artists that know how to deal with people or act civalized. I've found many talented people who didn't like getting into fights because it wasted energy that could be put towards their work.
I think the key is not to put geniuses/artists on a pedestal in that they are perfect and brilliant in all aspects of their life. Wasn't that one of the themes of the play Amadeus? Salieri was pius and expected to be rewarded by God with genius. Yet, Mozart was crude and rude but had great talent.
On the other hand, spending 8 hours a day in a practice room doesn't exactly help with people skills. I came across a few artists (child prodigies particularly) that did not know how to handle themselves in social situations because they didn't have the training by playing with kids their own age or hadn't gone to school. Those things teach us how to deal with other people or our frustrations.
Posted 09 January 2003 - 03:16 PM
I apologize! [and I edited the options for clarity]
Posted 09 January 2003 - 03:46 PM
Posted 12 January 2003 - 01:46 AM
i agree with dirac and with dale.
i also agree with victoria, that the terms
'real artist' , and
someone with 'extraordinary talents or gifts',
refer to (at least) three distinct and potentially separable things...
(although someone COULD be all of these!).
the issue, however, beyond the semantics of the poll, DOES concern me.
i am inclined to believe that unless someone is a decent human being, i really don't want to even know or see what they can do artistically...but usually, of course, one finds out AFTERwards, what the person is like...
Posted 12 January 2003 - 01:51 AM
i assume i am in the minority in holding that last opinion?
Posted 12 January 2003 - 08:46 AM
I have known some very talented individuals, who were called by some to be "genius", and some were nice; some were horrid.
(many were "real artists" , or even "with great talents", but not many were what I would have called a genius)
It would be better - of course - if anyone working with other people would develop at least a few people-skills.
I have also experienced it that the things we dancers thought were absolutely wonderful - and usually the choreographer was real nice, too - were not taken well by the audience. But, that is another topic....
I think it does not have to be true, that to be a genius, one has to be rotten to your dancers (or whoever!).
Posted 13 January 2003 - 03:31 AM
and that people whose values disgust me (if i happen to know that), are not people whose work i feel i should take any interest in. to take a severe example - if we think of nazism, or serious racism, or pedophilia, or child cruelty (or animal cruelty), or whatever you find absolutely unacceptable behaviour - if a person with such a history or active inclination produces some appealing art - ought we to admire it?
ho hum - THAT will set the cat among the pigeons...sorry, 'guys'!
i agree with this, which diane wrote:
p.S. nice to be speaking with you again, diane.
Posted 13 January 2003 - 12:56 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
members, guests, anonymous users
Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases: