Why Man Creates Art: Kanye West as an Archetypal Artist

[GrantHenderson]

When analyzing why man creates art, It is most useful to first consider the common personality traits among those throughout history who are regarded as the greatest artists. A counterintuitive fact common among many great artists throughout history is that they are also often depicted as "egomaniacs". Picasso, Beethoven, Mozart, Igor Stravinsky, Salvador Dali, John Lennon, Kanye West, Michelangelo, Etc. This quality within the artist is so at odds against the divine beauty which art represents, that it is important to investigate when forming a theory for why we create art. What pivotal role could the “over inflated” ego possibly play in the creation of beauty?

Art is one of man’s means of connecting with the divine spirit — all that is essential and unchanging in nature. All that is perfect, simple, harmonious, and everlasting. The Artist reaches out to the divine from his individual element, and brings the divine back to him. He does so by viewing things in his everyday life, not by how they physically appear, but by the ideas that extend beyond their physical appearance. He views in the individual object an idea that pushes it beyond the object itself. Like a growing flame on a decaying surface. Likewise, it is only when the individual exceeds his own perceived attributes of greatness that the fruits of beauty grow within him. This is the work of the artist, using his senses as the instruments upon which he sees past himself, to bridge himself with the divine spirit.

But in order for man to form a connection with the divine spirit, that connection must first be severed from man. Man would not need to bridge himself to the divine spirit through the creation of art if he were already in connection with it. This severance of man from the divine spirit can be attributed to his individual ego development. Thus, the individual becomes capable of creating a bridge between himself and the divine spirit through the creation of art when his individual element is first severed from that divine spirit by means of his ego development.

The ego functions to make the different faculties of our mind/soul more adequate. If man did not possess this center to his being, he would passively dissolve into the outside world. As such, it is the job of the ego to enrich itself inwardly. However, the negative side of the development of the ego is that it can cause one to shut off from the outside world. Our inner enrichment would come at the cost of receiving less enrichment from everything outside of us. And then eventually, the inner being is tapped dry of resources for inner-enrichment. As such, the artist must be able to enrich himself through the hardening of his ego, but also surpass his own individual element, in order to be enriched from his outer world. As such, the prolific artist has developed his ego, but is also willing to break free from its grips.

The artist is different from the truth seeker in this respect. The artist creates. He is nature's heartbeat. Whereas the truth seeker is nature's vessel. The truth seeker is not severed from the divine spirit, for he already sees that which is essential and unchanging in nature. This is why most truth seekers one encounters have predominantly patient and restrained temperaments. Nature imposes itself on them, but they don’t, so much, impose themselves onto nature.

On the other hand, “The mediator of the inexpressible is the work of art” - Goethe. There isn’t a natural process behind the feelings one subjectively experiences when creating art. Art conveys aesthetic pleasures, the qualities of which cannot be attributed to natural law. As such, the creation of art is man's will penetrating the essence of nature, as opposed to nature imposing itself upon man. He is able to use the elements brought about by his ego in order to free himself from it, and towards the divine.

The musical artist and fashion designer Kanye West demonstrates these characteristics like few others in history. My proposal that Kanye West is an archetypal artist is bound to be controversial among readers, likely due to his over inflated ego and controversial antics that are so often demonstrated by the mainstream media. But this might as well support its validity, for it is this ego development that I have deemed a necessary starting point for the artist's journey towards the divine spirit. And when we conduct a more careful character analysis of Kanye West, we see a much more complicated man than what is presented to us on the surface by the mainstream media. Kanye West is someone who exceeds his own capacities in the most general sense. He is someone who continually contradicts himself on all manner of topics, but is also capable of acknowledging his own commitment of such contradictions. This sort of behavior gives him the inner access to mine his own inner contradictions, and bridge them together as a source of art, thereby allowing him to "mediate the inexpressible”, as Goethe put it, in the purest sense. He perceives himself and everything he does as great, but is also able to see past his own characteristics of greatness in order to access the beauty around him. And when we listen to Kanye West's music, putting aside all preconceptions of him as a person, it is undeniably brilliant.



With this in mind, good art isn’t the naïve imitation of nature, but rather, the individual's personal interpretation of nature.

We can also see how this is the case when analyzing “what makes good music vs bad music”, if we are so bold as to assign any objective measures on the quality of art/music. Good music tends to progress in a manner whereby each note opens the most potential avenues of resolution to its state of tonal equilibrium, while diverging least from its state of tonal equilibrium. That is to say; each progressing note should divert little from the tonal equilibrium of the piece as a whole, but should also tonally relate to many note combinations departing from that state of tonal equilibrium, which resolve back within that state of tonal equilibrium. The art is in balancing these two opposing and irreconcilable demands on the artist. This is the artist's attempt at perfection within his art, without compromising potential for progression of his art. It satisfies his soul while maintaining his individual element that drives him to keep creating, and keep seeking out the divine spirit.

[Federica]

When analyzing why man creates art, It is most useful to first consider the common personality traits among those throughout history who are regarded as the greatest artists. A counterintuitive fact common among many great artists throughout history is that they are also often depicted as "egomaniacs". Picasso, Beethoven, Mozart, Igor Stravinsky, Salvador Dali, John Lennon, Kanye West, Michelangelo, Etc. This quality within the artist is so at odds against the divine beauty which art represents, that it is important to investigate when forming a theory for why we create art. What pivotal role could the “over inflated” ego possibly play in the creation of beauty?

Art is one of man’s means of connecting with the divine spirit — all that is essential and unchanging in nature. All that is perfect, simple, harmonious, and everlasting. The Artist reaches out to the divine from his individual element, and brings the divine back to him. He does so by viewing things in his everyday life, not by how they physically appear, but by the ideas that extend beyond their physical appearance. He views in the individual object an idea that pushes it beyond the object itself. Like a growing flame on a decaying surface. Likewise, it is only when the individual exceeds his own perceived attributes of greatness that the fruits of beauty grow within him. This is the work of the artist, using his senses as the instruments upon which he sees past himself, to bridge himself with the divine spirit.

But in order for man to form a connection with the divine spirit, that connection must first be severed from man. Man would not need to bridge himself to the divine spirit through the creation of art if he were already in connection with it. This severance of man from the divine spirit can be attributed to his individual ego development. Thus, the individual becomes capable of creating a bridge between himself and the divine spirit through the creation of art when his individual element is first severed from that divine spirit by means of his ego development.

The ego functions to make the different faculties of our mind/soul more adequate. If man did not possess this center to his being, he would passively dissolve into the outside world. As such, it is the job of the ego to enrich itself inwardly. However, the negative side of the development of the ego is that it can cause one to shut off from the outside world. Our inner enrichment would come at the cost of receiving less enrichment from everything outside of us. And then eventually, the inner being is tapped dry of resources for inner-enrichment. As such, the artist must be able to enrich himself through the hardening of his ego, but also surpass his own individual element, in order to be enriched from his outer world. As such, the prolific artist has developed his ego, but is also willing to break free from its grips.

The artist is different from the truth seeker in this respect. The artist creates. He is nature's heartbeat. Whereas the truth seeker is nature's vessel. The truth seeker is not severed from the divine spirit, for he already sees that which is essential and unchanging in nature. This is why most truth seekers one encounters have predominantly patient and restrained temperaments. Nature imposes itself on them, but they don’t, so much, impose themselves onto nature.

On the other hand, “The mediator of the inexpressible is the work of art” - Goethe. There isn’t a natural process behind the feelings one subjectively experiences when creating art. Art conveys aesthetic pleasures, the qualities of which cannot be attributed to natural law. As such, the creation of art is man's will penetrating the essence of nature, as opposed to nature imposing itself upon man. He is able to use the elements brought about by his ego in order to free himself from it, and towards the divine.

The musical artist and fashion designer Kanye West demonstrates these characteristics like few others in history. My proposal that Kanye West is an archetypal artist is bound to be controversial among readers, likely due to his over inflated ego and controversial antics that are so often demonstrated by the mainstream media. But this might as well support its validity, for it is this ego development that I have deemed a necessary starting point for the artist's journey towards the divine spirit. And when we conduct a more careful character analysis of Kanye West, we see a much more complicated man than what is presented to us on the surface by the mainstream media. Kanye West is someone who exceeds his own capacities in the most general sense. He is someone who continually contradicts himself on all manner of topics, but is also capable of acknowledging his own commitment of such contradictions. This sort of behavior gives him the inner access to mine his own inner contradictions, and bridge them together as a source of art, thereby allowing him to "mediate the inexpressible”, as Goethe put it, in the purest sense. He perceives himself and everything he does as great, but is also able to see past his own characteristics of greatness in order to access the beauty around him. And when we listen to Kanye West's music, putting aside all preconceptions of him as a person, it is undeniably brilliant.



With this in mind, good art isn’t the naïve imitation of nature, but rather, the individual's personal interpretation of nature.

We can also see how this is the case when analyzing “what makes good music vs bad music”, if we are so bold as to assign any objective measures on the quality of art/music. Good music tends to progress in a manner whereby each note opens the most potential avenues of resolution to its state of tonal equilibrium, while diverging least from its state of tonal equilibrium. That is to say; each progressing note should divert little from the tonal equilibrium of the piece as a whole, but should also tonally relate to many note combinations departing from that state of tonal equilibrium, which resolve back within that state of tonal equilibrium. The art is in balancing these two opposing and irreconcilable demands on the artist. This is the artist's attempt at perfection within his art, without compromising potential for progression of his art. It satisfies his soul while maintaining his individual element that drives him to keep creating, and keep seeking out the divine spirit.

Hi GrantHenderson,

Is this post a poem, an essay, a vision, a journal entry, a question, an affirmation, or what is it? With such an impressive series of postulates reeled off one after the other, you really leave one wondering how to interpret your writing, and how to respond to your act of posting in a way that is respectful of your intention. Please help.

[AshvinP]

When analyzing why man creates art, It is most useful to first consider the common personality traits among those throughout history who are regarded as the greatest artists. A counterintuitive fact common among many great artists throughout history is that they are also often depicted as "egomaniacs". Picasso, Beethoven, Mozart, Igor Stravinsky, Salvador Dali, John Lennon, Kanye West, Michelangelo, Etc. This quality within the artist is so at odds against the divine beauty which art represents, that it is important to investigate when forming a theory for why we create art. What pivotal role could the “over inflated” ego possibly play in the creation of beauty?

Art is one of man’s means of connecting with the divine spirit — all that is essential and unchanging in nature. All that is perfect, simple, harmonious, and everlasting. The Artist reaches out to the divine from his individual element, and brings the divine back to him. He does so by viewing things in his everyday life, not by how they physically appear, but by the ideas that extend beyond their physical appearance. He views in the individual object an idea that pushes it beyond the object itself. Like a growing flame on a decaying surface. Likewise, it is only when the individual exceeds his own perceived attributes of greatness that the fruits of beauty grow within him. This is the work of the artist, using his senses as the instruments upon which he sees past himself, to bridge himself with the divine spirit.

But in order for man to form a connection with the divine spirit, that connection must first be severed from man. Man would not need to bridge himself to the divine spirit through the creation of art if he were already in connection with it. This severance of man from the divine spirit can be attributed to his individual ego development. Thus, the individual becomes capable of creating a bridge between himself and the divine spirit through the creation of art when his individual element is first severed from that divine spirit by means of his ego development.

The ego functions to make the different faculties of our mind/soul more adequate. If man did not possess this center to his being, he would passively dissolve into the outside world. As such, it is the job of the ego to enrich itself inwardly. However, the negative side of the development of the ego is that it can cause one to shut off from the outside world. Our inner enrichment would come at the cost of receiving less enrichment from everything outside of us. And then eventually, the inner being is tapped dry of resources for inner-enrichment. As such, the artist must be able to enrich himself through the hardening of his ego, but also surpass his own individual element, in order to be enriched from his outer world. As such, the prolific artist has developed his ego, but is also willing to break free from its grips.

The artist is different from the truth seeker in this respect. The artist creates. He is nature's heartbeat. Whereas the truth seeker is nature's vessel. The truth seeker is not severed from the divine spirit, for he already sees that which is essential and unchanging in nature. This is why most truth seekers one encounters have predominantly patient and restrained temperaments. Nature imposes itself on them, but they don’t, so much, impose themselves onto nature.

On the other hand, “The mediator of the inexpressible is the work of art” - Goethe. There isn’t a natural process behind the feelings one subjectively experiences when creating art. Art conveys aesthetic pleasures, the qualities of which cannot be attributed to natural law. As such, the creation of art is man's will penetrating the essence of nature, as opposed to nature imposing itself upon man. He is able to use the elements brought about by his ego in order to free himself from it, and towards the divine.

The musical artist and fashion designer Kanye West demonstrates these characteristics like few others in history. My proposal that Kanye West is an archetypal artist is bound to be controversial among readers, likely due to his over inflated ego and controversial antics that are so often demonstrated by the mainstream media. But this might as well support its validity, for it is this ego development that I have deemed a necessary starting point for the artist's journey towards the divine spirit. And when we conduct a more careful character analysis of Kanye West, we see a much more complicated man than what is presented to us on the surface by the mainstream media. Kanye West is someone who exceeds his own capacities in the most general sense. He is someone who continually contradicts himself on all manner of topics, but is also capable of acknowledging his own commitment of such contradictions. This sort of behavior gives him the inner access to mine his own inner contradictions, and bridge them together as a source of art, thereby allowing him to "mediate the inexpressible”, as Goethe put it, in the purest sense. He perceives himself and everything he does as great, but is also able to see past his own characteristics of greatness in order to access the beauty around him. And when we listen to Kanye West's music, putting aside all preconceptions of him as a person, it is undeniably brilliant.



With this in mind, good art isn’t the naïve imitation of nature, but rather, the individual's personal interpretation of nature.

We can also see how this is the case when analyzing “what makes good music vs bad music”, if we are so bold as to assign any objective measures on the quality of art/music. Good music tends to progress in a manner whereby each note opens the most potential avenues of resolution to its state of tonal equilibrium, while diverging least from its state of tonal equilibrium. That is to say; each progressing note should divert little from the tonal equilibrium of the piece as a whole, but should also tonally relate to many note combinations departing from that state of tonal equilibrium, which resolve back within that state of tonal equilibrium. The art is in balancing these two opposing and irreconcilable demands on the artist. This is the artist's attempt at perfection within his art, without compromising potential for progression of his art. It satisfies his soul while maintaining his individual element that drives him to keep creating, and keep seeking out the divine spirit.

Hello Grant,

It's good to hear from you again. This was a very interesting post, thanks! I have to say that I enjoyed the Kanye production, despite my inclination to view it with suspicion. Nevertheless, let me offer some thoughts.

Your characterization of creative thinking reminds me of the Prometheus myth - he brought Fire to man and therefore had to suffer the consequences of separation from the Divine, symbolized by the vulture gnawing away at his liver. There is certainly a deep truth here. The price of self-consciousness and increasingly creative thinking was separation from the Divine Spirit and its impulses, as you say. Likewise, you are correct to say that creative thinking relies on a strengthening of the Ego in a way that sets it apart from the dictates of the sensory world and natural habits. Yet, in this ongoing process of liberation, the Ego still has the propensity to remain radically self-interested in our age. 

It is basically taken as axiomatic by modern culture that this must remain the case - the dualism between individual Ego and collective manifestations of Love has never been wider. It is felt we need to either abandon the ideal of collective Love, mystically 'dissolve' the Ego (which really means a lapse into ever-greater unconsciousness), or, most often, some mix of both. The self-interested ego also manifests in many spiritual pursuits of the world, and this is where things get tricky and treacherous. It could be very easy for someone to convince themselves that, by bringing the Gospel to the world in a new artistic way, they are glorifying God and bringing about His kingdom, ignoring the inner price these things must be purchased at. 

Think of all the worldly things which go into planning and executing such a production as Kanye is doing. And it all brings a sense of ever-greater power which is being accumulated. It reminds of the Tower of Babel - "'Come', they said, 'let us build for ourselves a city with a tower that reaches to the heavens, that we may make a name for ourselves'". So what is the solution to this egoic propensity of creative pursuits in our age? Should we simply abandon them or impose some sort of moralistic restrictions on ourselves when creating aesthetically? Steiner wrote a lot on Goethe and there is a chapter in his book, Goethean Science, on the relationship between his art and his science. Here is a quote which seems to express what you also expressed in the post re: 'truth seeking'.

The situation is supposedly quite different in the case of artistic creations. Their law is given them by the self-creative power of the human spirit. For science, any interference of human subjectivity would be a falsifying of reality, a going beyond experience; art, on the other hand, grows upon the field of the subjectivity of a genius. Its creations are the productions of human imagination, not mirror images of the outer world. Outside of us, in objective existence, lies the source of scientific laws; within us, in our individuality, lies the source of aesthetic laws. The latter, therefore, have not the slightest value for knowledge; they create illusions without the slightest element of reality.

Now I am not presupposing that the above is your view, particularly, but I do sense you were expressing a discontinuity between art and science, although some portions of your post seem to express also a direction towards their reconciliation. The latter is what we speak of here often in terms of 'higher cognition'. Art, especially music, speaks to us of a higher-order speech which is responsible for the sensory world we perceive around us. We must lean into the individual Ego-forces yet also purify our desires and feelings - baptize them in the Water and Fire of the Spirit - to develop Imaginative cognition, which is a synthesis of scientific-mathematical and artistic thinking. By seeking the Divine Spirit primarily from within, via thinking Ego-consciousness, we also bring that Spirit back to the external appearances of Nature. That is the reconciliation of the duality between 'truth seeking', as you call it, and artistic pursuits which are truly creative forces in the world, liberating our inner spiritual activity from the constraints of mere nature and its regularities. There is great reason to think that this reconciliation lay at the heart of Goethe's inspiration as well.

Whoever grasps the matter in this way [referring to what was quoted above] will never become clear about the relationship of Goethean poetry to Goethean science. He will only misunderstand both. Goethe's world historic significance lies, indeed, precisely in the fact that his art flows directly from the primal source of all existence, that there is nothing illusory or subjective about it, that, on the contrary, his art appears as the herald of that lawfulness that the poet has grasped by listening to the world spirit within the depths of nature's working. At this level, art becomes the interpreter of the mysteries of the world just as science is also, in a different sense.

And Goethe always conceived of art in this way. It was for him one of the revelations of the primal law of the world; science was for him the other one. For him art and science sprang from one source. Whereas the researcher delves down into the depths of reality in order then to express their driving powers in the form of thoughts, the artist seeks to imbue his medium with these same driving powers. “I think that one could call science the knowledge of the general, abstracted knowing; art, on the other hand, would be science turned into action; science would be reason, and art its mechanism; therefore one could also call art practical science. And finally then science could be called the theorem and art the problem.” 

[GrantHenderson]

When analyzing why man creates art, It is most useful to first consider the common personality traits among those throughout history who are regarded as the greatest artists. A counterintuitive fact common among many great artists throughout history is that they are also often depicted as "egomaniacs". Picasso, Beethoven, Mozart, Igor Stravinsky, Salvador Dali, John Lennon, Kanye West, Michelangelo, Etc. This quality within the artist is so at odds against the divine beauty which art represents, that it is important to investigate when forming a theory for why we create art. What pivotal role could the “over inflated” ego possibly play in the creation of beauty?

Art is one of man’s means of connecting with the divine spirit — all that is essential and unchanging in nature. All that is perfect, simple, harmonious, and everlasting. The Artist reaches out to the divine from his individual element, and brings the divine back to him. He does so by viewing things in his everyday life, not by how they physically appear, but by the ideas that extend beyond their physical appearance. He views in the individual object an idea that pushes it beyond the object itself. Like a growing flame on a decaying surface. Likewise, it is only when the individual exceeds his own perceived attributes of greatness that the fruits of beauty grow within him. This is the work of the artist, using his senses as the instruments upon which he sees past himself, to bridge himself with the divine spirit.

But in order for man to form a connection with the divine spirit, that connection must first be severed from man. Man would not need to bridge himself to the divine spirit through the creation of art if he were already in connection with it. This severance of man from the divine spirit can be attributed to his individual ego development. Thus, the individual becomes capable of creating a bridge between himself and the divine spirit through the creation of art when his individual element is first severed from that divine spirit by means of his ego development.

The ego functions to make the different faculties of our mind/soul more adequate. If man did not possess this center to his being, he would passively dissolve into the outside world. As such, it is the job of the ego to enrich itself inwardly. However, the negative side of the development of the ego is that it can cause one to shut off from the outside world. Our inner enrichment would come at the cost of receiving less enrichment from everything outside of us. And then eventually, the inner being is tapped dry of resources for inner-enrichment. As such, the artist must be able to enrich himself through the hardening of his ego, but also surpass his own individual element, in order to be enriched from his outer world. As such, the prolific artist has developed his ego, but is also willing to break free from its grips.

The artist is different from the truth seeker in this respect. The artist creates. He is nature's heartbeat. Whereas the truth seeker is nature's vessel. The truth seeker is not severed from the divine spirit, for he already sees that which is essential and unchanging in nature. This is why most truth seekers one encounters have predominantly patient and restrained temperaments. Nature imposes itself on them, but they don’t, so much, impose themselves onto nature.

On the other hand, “The mediator of the inexpressible is the work of art” - Goethe. There isn’t a natural process behind the feelings one subjectively experiences when creating art. Art conveys aesthetic pleasures, the qualities of which cannot be attributed to natural law. As such, the creation of art is man's will penetrating the essence of nature, as opposed to nature imposing itself upon man. He is able to use the elements brought about by his ego in order to free himself from it, and towards the divine.

The musical artist and fashion designer Kanye West demonstrates these characteristics like few others in history. My proposal that Kanye West is an archetypal artist is bound to be controversial among readers, likely due to his over inflated ego and controversial antics that are so often demonstrated by the mainstream media. But this might as well support its validity, for it is this ego development that I have deemed a necessary starting point for the artist's journey towards the divine spirit. And when we conduct a more careful character analysis of Kanye West, we see a much more complicated man than what is presented to us on the surface by the mainstream media. Kanye West is someone who exceeds his own capacities in the most general sense. He is someone who continually contradicts himself on all manner of topics, but is also capable of acknowledging his own commitment of such contradictions. This sort of behavior gives him the inner access to mine his own inner contradictions, and bridge them together as a source of art, thereby allowing him to "mediate the inexpressible”, as Goethe put it, in the purest sense. He perceives himself and everything he does as great, but is also able to see past his own characteristics of greatness in order to access the beauty around him. And when we listen to Kanye West's music, putting aside all preconceptions of him as a person, it is undeniably brilliant.



With this in mind, good art isn’t the naïve imitation of nature, but rather, the individual's personal interpretation of nature.

We can also see how this is the case when analyzing “what makes good music vs bad music”, if we are so bold as to assign any objective measures on the quality of art/music. Good music tends to progress in a manner whereby each note opens the most potential avenues of resolution to its state of tonal equilibrium, while diverging least from its state of tonal equilibrium. That is to say; each progressing note should divert little from the tonal equilibrium of the piece as a whole, but should also tonally relate to many note combinations departing from that state of tonal equilibrium, which resolve back within that state of tonal equilibrium. The art is in balancing these two opposing and irreconcilable demands on the artist. This is the artist's attempt at perfection within his art, without compromising potential for progression of his art. It satisfies his soul while maintaining his individual element that drives him to keep creating, and keep seeking out the divine spirit.

Hi GrantHenderson,

Is this post a poem, an essay, a vision, a journal entry, a question, an affirmation, or what is it? With such an impressive series of postulates reeled off one after the other, you really leave one wondering how to interpret your writing, and how to respond to your act of posting in a way that is respectful of your intention. Please help.

Hi Federica. like you say, I suppose it is just a series of ideas reeled off one after the other, meant to try to address the question of why/how we create art. With that said, there should be no expectation of you as the commenter to provide anything more focused. Feel free to point out any issues, or ideas of your own on the matter.

[GrantHenderson]

When analyzing why man creates art, It is most useful to first consider the common personality traits among those throughout history who are regarded as the greatest artists. A counterintuitive fact common among many great artists throughout history is that they are also often depicted as "egomaniacs". Picasso, Beethoven, Mozart, Igor Stravinsky, Salvador Dali, John Lennon, Kanye West, Michelangelo, Etc. This quality within the artist is so at odds against the divine beauty which art represents, that it is important to investigate when forming a theory for why we create art. What pivotal role could the “over inflated” ego possibly play in the creation of beauty?

Art is one of man’s means of connecting with the divine spirit — all that is essential and unchanging in nature. All that is perfect, simple, harmonious, and everlasting. The Artist reaches out to the divine from his individual element, and brings the divine back to him. He does so by viewing things in his everyday life, not by how they physically appear, but by the ideas that extend beyond their physical appearance. He views in the individual object an idea that pushes it beyond the object itself. Like a growing flame on a decaying surface. Likewise, it is only when the individual exceeds his own perceived attributes of greatness that the fruits of beauty grow within him. This is the work of the artist, using his senses as the instruments upon which he sees past himself, to bridge himself with the divine spirit.

But in order for man to form a connection with the divine spirit, that connection must first be severed from man. Man would not need to bridge himself to the divine spirit through the creation of art if he were already in connection with it. This severance of man from the divine spirit can be attributed to his individual ego development. Thus, the individual becomes capable of creating a bridge between himself and the divine spirit through the creation of art when his individual element is first severed from that divine spirit by means of his ego development.

The ego functions to make the different faculties of our mind/soul more adequate. If man did not possess this center to his being, he would passively dissolve into the outside world. As such, it is the job of the ego to enrich itself inwardly. However, the negative side of the development of the ego is that it can cause one to shut off from the outside world. Our inner enrichment would come at the cost of receiving less enrichment from everything outside of us. And then eventually, the inner being is tapped dry of resources for inner-enrichment. As such, the artist must be able to enrich himself through the hardening of his ego, but also surpass his own individual element, in order to be enriched from his outer world. As such, the prolific artist has developed his ego, but is also willing to break free from its grips.

The artist is different from the truth seeker in this respect. The artist creates. He is nature's heartbeat. Whereas the truth seeker is nature's vessel. The truth seeker is not severed from the divine spirit, for he already sees that which is essential and unchanging in nature. This is why most truth seekers one encounters have predominantly patient and restrained temperaments. Nature imposes itself on them, but they don’t, so much, impose themselves onto nature.

On the other hand, “The mediator of the inexpressible is the work of art” - Goethe. There isn’t a natural process behind the feelings one subjectively experiences when creating art. Art conveys aesthetic pleasures, the qualities of which cannot be attributed to natural law. As such, the creation of art is man's will penetrating the essence of nature, as opposed to nature imposing itself upon man. He is able to use the elements brought about by his ego in order to free himself from it, and towards the divine.

The musical artist and fashion designer Kanye West demonstrates these characteristics like few others in history. My proposal that Kanye West is an archetypal artist is bound to be controversial among readers, likely due to his over inflated ego and controversial antics that are so often demonstrated by the mainstream media. But this might as well support its validity, for it is this ego development that I have deemed a necessary starting point for the artist's journey towards the divine spirit. And when we conduct a more careful character analysis of Kanye West, we see a much more complicated man than what is presented to us on the surface by the mainstream media. Kanye West is someone who exceeds his own capacities in the most general sense. He is someone who continually contradicts himself on all manner of topics, but is also capable of acknowledging his own commitment of such contradictions. This sort of behavior gives him the inner access to mine his own inner contradictions, and bridge them together as a source of art, thereby allowing him to "mediate the inexpressible”, as Goethe put it, in the purest sense. He perceives himself and everything he does as great, but is also able to see past his own characteristics of greatness in order to access the beauty around him. And when we listen to Kanye West's music, putting aside all preconceptions of him as a person, it is undeniably brilliant.



With this in mind, good art isn’t the naïve imitation of nature, but rather, the individual's personal interpretation of nature.

We can also see how this is the case when analyzing “what makes good music vs bad music”, if we are so bold as to assign any objective measures on the quality of art/music. Good music tends to progress in a manner whereby each note opens the most potential avenues of resolution to its state of tonal equilibrium, while diverging least from its state of tonal equilibrium. That is to say; each progressing note should divert little from the tonal equilibrium of the piece as a whole, but should also tonally relate to many note combinations departing from that state of tonal equilibrium, which resolve back within that state of tonal equilibrium. The art is in balancing these two opposing and irreconcilable demands on the artist. This is the artist's attempt at perfection within his art, without compromising potential for progression of his art. It satisfies his soul while maintaining his individual element that drives him to keep creating, and keep seeking out the divine spirit.

Hello Grant,

It's good to hear from you again. This was a very interesting post, thanks! I have to say that I enjoyed the Kanye production, despite my inclination to view it with suspicion. Nevertheless, let me offer some thoughts.

Your characterization of creative thinking reminds me of the Prometheus myth - he brought Fire to man and therefore had to suffer the consequences of separation from the Divine, symbolized by the vulture gnawing away at his liver. There is certainly a deep truth here. The price of self-consciousness and increasingly creative thinking was separation from the Divine Spirit and its impulses, as you say. Likewise, you are correct to say that creative thinking relies on a strengthening of the Ego in a way that sets it apart from the dictates of the sensory world and natural habits. Yet, in this ongoing process of liberation, the Ego still has the propensity to remain radically self-interested in our age. 

It is basically taken as axiomatic by modern culture that this must remain the case - the dualism between individual Ego and collective manifestations of Love has never been wider. It is felt we need to either abandon the ideal of collective Love, mystically 'dissolve' the Ego (which really means a lapse into ever-greater unconsciousness), or, most often, some mix of both. The self-interested ego also manifests in many spiritual pursuits of the world, and this is where things get tricky and treacherous. It could be very easy for someone to convince themselves that, by bringing the Gospel to the world in a new artistic way, they are glorifying God and bringing about His kingdom, ignoring the inner price these things must be purchased at. 

Think of all the worldly things which go into planning and executing such a production as Kanye is doing. And it all brings a sense of ever-greater power which is being accumulated. It reminds of the Tower of Babel - "'Come', they said, 'let us build for ourselves a city with a tower that reaches to the heavens, that we may make a name for ourselves'". So what is the solution to this egoic propensity of creative pursuits in our age? Should we simply abandon them or impose some sort of moralistic restrictions on ourselves when creating aesthetically? Steiner wrote a lot on Goethe and there is a chapter in his book, Goethean Science, on the relationship between his art and his science. Here is a quote which seems to express what you also expressed in the post re: 'truth seeking'.

The situation is supposedly quite different in the case of artistic creations. Their law is given them by the self-creative power of the human spirit. For science, any interference of human subjectivity would be a falsifying of reality, a going beyond experience; art, on the other hand, grows upon the field of the subjectivity of a genius. Its creations are the productions of human imagination, not mirror images of the outer world. Outside of us, in objective existence, lies the source of scientific laws; within us, in our individuality, lies the source of aesthetic laws. The latter, therefore, have not the slightest value for knowledge; they create illusions without the slightest element of reality.

Now I am not presupposing that the above is your view, particularly, but I do sense you were expressing a discontinuity between art and science, although some portions of your post seem to express also a direction towards their reconciliation. The latter is what we speak of here often in terms of 'higher cognition'. Art, especially music, speaks to us of a higher-order speech which is responsible for the sensory world we perceive around us. We must lean into the individual Ego-forces yet also purify our desires and feelings - baptize them in the Water and Fire of the Spirit - to develop Imaginative cognition, which is a synthesis of scientific-mathematical and artistic thinking. By seeking the Divine Spirit primarily from within, via thinking Ego-consciousness, we also bring that Spirit back to the external appearances of Nature. That is the reconciliation of the duality between 'truth seeking', as you call it, and artistic pursuits which are truly creative forces in the world, liberating our inner spiritual activity from the constraints of mere nature and its regularities. There is great reason to think that this reconciliation lay at the heart of Goethe's inspiration as well.

Whoever grasps the matter in this way [referring to what was quoted above] will never become clear about the relationship of Goethean poetry to Goethean science. He will only misunderstand both. Goethe's world historic significance lies, indeed, precisely in the fact that his art flows directly from the primal source of all existence, that there is nothing illusory or subjective about it, that, on the contrary, his art appears as the herald of that lawfulness that the poet has grasped by listening to the world spirit within the depths of nature's working. At this level, art becomes the interpreter of the mysteries of the world just as science is also, in a different sense.

And Goethe always conceived of art in this way. It was for him one of the revelations of the primal law of the world; science was for him the other one. For him art and science sprang from one source. Whereas the researcher delves down into the depths of reality in order then to express their driving powers in the form of thoughts, the artist seeks to imbue his medium with these same driving powers. “I think that one could call science the knowledge of the general, abstracted knowing; art, on the other hand, would be science turned into action; science would be reason, and art its mechanism; therefore one could also call art practical science. And finally then science could be called the theorem and art the problem.” 

Hello again Ashvin,

It is felt we need to either abandon the ideal of collective Love, mystically 'dissolve' the Ego (which really means a lapse into ever-greater unconsciousness), or, most often, some mix of both.

Yeah I think some mix of both should ideally be sought. And perhaps this is where the evolution of man is heading towards. I think an important aspect of the development of the human ego throughout the course of human evolution is his growing ability to “love his own wisdom”. Without ego, we cannot reassure ourselves, love ourselves, or believe in ourselves. We also cannot direct this love onto other individuals, to inspire them to do the same. But as you say, the ego of the modern day is radically self interested.

It is the moral and functional task of man to make the outer world the contents of his inner experience, so his inner experience is constantly rejuvenated by the light which feeds him, and so his blossoming thoughts and ideas can fertilize the world which surrounds him. Man cannot recede so deeply within himself that he cannot reach the light that calls upon him from above, for he will wither and wilt and become dependent on his primal instincts to pull himself out. However, often the artist recedes deep within himself, and as the branches of his livelihood are pruned, and soon begin to crumble, the next light that calls upon him greater impacts his growth, for what remains of him now requires less resources to nourish.

While I do in some respects view that a change in the artists behavior would be morally ideal, whereby his outer world becomes the inspiring contents of his inner experiences, and vise versa, I also view these people as necessary sacrifices, who are capable of inspiring others to reach towards the divine in ways that someone who might have a stronger connection with the divine cannot. Art is a much more digestible language than the ones which we speak. Art can often help mend the soul in ways that words cannot.

Interesting that you regard music as especially special. I suspect the creation of music, more than other artforms, requires a direct connection with the divine because our sensory perceptions cannot be relied upon as a source of inspiration thereto, like we can for the visual arts, for example. We see beauty everywhere in nature that inspires beauty in our artwork, but rarely or never do we hear beauty in nature to inspire beauty in our music. It would then follow that sound is a medium through which we can access the divine directly.

FYI, I could recommend a few more Kanye West tracks if you liked that one. He is a severely misunderstood figure (but still flawed, of course), a creative genius, and a fascinating character study. Jonathan Pageau does an interesting analysis on the characteristics of his genius and his surprisingly important role in society. Kanye West could be the sort of sacrificial artistic figure I am referring to.

[Federica]

When analyzing why man creates art, It is most useful to first consider the common personality traits among those throughout history who are regarded as the greatest artists. A counterintuitive fact common among many great artists throughout history is that they are also often depicted as "egomaniacs". Picasso, Beethoven, Mozart, Igor Stravinsky, Salvador Dali, John Lennon, Kanye West, Michelangelo, Etc. This quality within the artist is so at odds against the divine beauty which art represents, that it is important to investigate when forming a theory for why we create art. What pivotal role could the “over inflated” ego possibly play in the creation of beauty?

Art is one of man’s means of connecting with the divine spirit — all that is essential and unchanging in nature. All that is perfect, simple, harmonious, and everlasting. The Artist reaches out to the divine from his individual element, and brings the divine back to him. He does so by viewing things in his everyday life, not by how they physically appear, but by the ideas that extend beyond their physical appearance. He views in the individual object an idea that pushes it beyond the object itself. Like a growing flame on a decaying surface. Likewise, it is only when the individual exceeds his own perceived attributes of greatness that the fruits of beauty grow within him. This is the work of the artist, using his senses as the instruments upon which he sees past himself, to bridge himself with the divine spirit.

But in order for man to form a connection with the divine spirit, that connection must first be severed from man. Man would not need to bridge himself to the divine spirit through the creation of art if he were already in connection with it. This severance of man from the divine spirit can be attributed to his individual ego development. Thus, the individual becomes capable of creating a bridge between himself and the divine spirit through the creation of art when his individual element is first severed from that divine spirit by means of his ego development.

The ego functions to make the different faculties of our mind/soul more adequate. If man did not possess this center to his being, he would passively dissolve into the outside world. As such, it is the job of the ego to enrich itself inwardly. However, the negative side of the development of the ego is that it can cause one to shut off from the outside world. Our inner enrichment would come at the cost of receiving less enrichment from everything outside of us. And then eventually, the inner being is tapped dry of resources for inner-enrichment. As such, the artist must be able to enrich himself through the hardening of his ego, but also surpass his own individual element, in order to be enriched from his outer world. As such, the prolific artist has developed his ego, but is also willing to break free from its grips.

The artist is different from the truth seeker in this respect. The artist creates. He is nature's heartbeat. Whereas the truth seeker is nature's vessel. The truth seeker is not severed from the divine spirit, for he already sees that which is essential and unchanging in nature. This is why most truth seekers one encounters have predominantly patient and restrained temperaments. Nature imposes itself on them, but they don’t, so much, impose themselves onto nature.

On the other hand, “The mediator of the inexpressible is the work of art” - Goethe. There isn’t a natural process behind the feelings one subjectively experiences when creating art. Art conveys aesthetic pleasures, the qualities of which cannot be attributed to natural law. As such, the creation of art is man's will penetrating the essence of nature, as opposed to nature imposing itself upon man. He is able to use the elements brought about by his ego in order to free himself from it, and towards the divine.

The musical artist and fashion designer Kanye West demonstrates these characteristics like few others in history. My proposal that Kanye West is an archetypal artist is bound to be controversial among readers, likely due to his over inflated ego and controversial antics that are so often demonstrated by the mainstream media. But this might as well support its validity, for it is this ego development that I have deemed a necessary starting point for the artist's journey towards the divine spirit. And when we conduct a more careful character analysis of Kanye West, we see a much more complicated man than what is presented to us on the surface by the mainstream media. Kanye West is someone who exceeds his own capacities in the most general sense. He is someone who continually contradicts himself on all manner of topics, but is also capable of acknowledging his own commitment of such contradictions. This sort of behavior gives him the inner access to mine his own inner contradictions, and bridge them together as a source of art, thereby allowing him to "mediate the inexpressible”, as Goethe put it, in the purest sense. He perceives himself and everything he does as great, but is also able to see past his own characteristics of greatness in order to access the beauty around him. And when we listen to Kanye West's music, putting aside all preconceptions of him as a person, it is undeniably brilliant.



With this in mind, good art isn’t the naïve imitation of nature, but rather, the individual's personal interpretation of nature.

We can also see how this is the case when analyzing “what makes good music vs bad music”, if we are so bold as to assign any objective measures on the quality of art/music. Good music tends to progress in a manner whereby each note opens the most potential avenues of resolution to its state of tonal equilibrium, while diverging least from its state of tonal equilibrium. That is to say; each progressing note should divert little from the tonal equilibrium of the piece as a whole, but should also tonally relate to many note combinations departing from that state of tonal equilibrium, which resolve back within that state of tonal equilibrium. The art is in balancing these two opposing and irreconcilable demands on the artist. This is the artist's attempt at perfection within his art, without compromising potential for progression of his art. It satisfies his soul while maintaining his individual element that drives him to keep creating, and keep seeking out the divine spirit.

Hi GrantHenderson,

Is this post a poem, an essay, a vision, a journal entry, a question, an affirmation, or what is it? With such an impressive series of postulates reeled off one after the other, you really leave one wondering how to interpret your writing, and how to respond to your act of posting in a way that is respectful of your intention. Please help.

Hi Federica. like you say, I suppose it is just a series of ideas reeled off one after the other, meant to try to address the question of why/how we create art. With that said, there should be no expectation of you as the commenter to provide anything more focused. Feel free to point out any issues, or ideas of your own on the matter.

Hi Grant. Your disarming reply points me directly towards my weaknesses. Thank you! I will now do my best to make good use of this indication.


I know too little of KW’s work to form an opinion or taste about his character and art. Because what I have is only vague impressions, I will simply not go there. There is enough to consider about the why and how of artistic impulse as standalone topics! Reading your ideas, I have certainly felt divergence from them, and I will try to lay this out as clearly as I can. Before I get there, I have to note that much of what I am about to write is grounded in solid and long sought for, but still very recent understanding for me. Despite my keen intention to constructive criticism and fairness, this lack of consolidation is a fact that should be considered for the impact it could have on my viewpoint as expressed here below.


My general comment to your theory is that there is no need to search for the trigger of artistic endeavor in inflated ego, or any other form of over-the-top-ness in the artist’s personality. I see artistic impulse as an intrinsic, inherent human impulse that expresses itself in a continuum across individuals. But had I had your opinion that art is rooted in exception, I would have started from the profound reasons at the core of this idea, rather than from the phenomenon of exceptionally inflated egos in particular. So I am perplexed that you start off with this down-the-road type of argument, that moreover I find questionable. You cite a few artists who indeed seem to present traits of ‘egomania’, but how many more could be cited that do not match this type? My sense is that, if there is anything inflated ego is correlated with, this is celebrity, which is something quite distinct from artistic expression.


Further, to your purpose of forming a theory for why we create art, not only do I feel that you start from the middle, but also I miss a definition of what art is in your perspective. We can certainly losely orient ourselves by thinking of musicians and painters, but is for example a dancer an artist in your opinion? What about a builder? An artisan? Can a child be an artist? What makes a creation artistic in your perspective? Is Picasso an artist the moment the idea of his first painting forms within him, or does he become such only when that idea is expressed as painted canvas? Or has he always been an artist? Again, for me the answer lies in a continuum between action and art, a continuum between free and compelled artistic impulse, a continuum between expression and potential. But I suspect you see things differently? My impression is that when we focus on the exceptional quality of artistic expression, linking it to isolated personalities and their eccentricity, we are looking at iceberg tips, leaving unprobed the massive, concentric core from which artistic impulse blossoms, in an acclivous landscape of expressions. Maybe I can use a word I recently learned on this forum, to describe what I understand of your viewpoint. I may be wrong, but at this moment I feel you have an aliased understanding of art, in the sense Cleric uses this word.


Your thoughts about how artistic creation unfolds come to corroborate this impression. You choose to see artistic expression as appropriation of the unchanging divine by the artist: "The Artist reaches out to the divine from his individual element, and brings the divine back to him” rather than as a two-sided gesture, also moving in the direction of giving back, offering one’s creation to the divine, or even sacrificing it. I think this aliased vision suffers from the unchanging character that you ascribe, as a postulate, to the divine. If you were accepting the ever-evolving nature of the divine, you would probably be open to see both sides of the artistic impetus, not only the part where we draw from the supposedly “unchanging, perfect and ever-lasting” divine, but also the part where our gesture circles back and joins up with the divine.


A further statement you make about the 'how' of artistic creation is that it starts from sensory life, from viewing things:

He does so by viewing things in his everyday life, not by how they physically appear, but by the ideas that extend beyond their physical appearance. He views in the individual object an idea that pushes it beyond the object itself.

I wonder what makes you take this stance. Can we really say that Mozart imagined his symphonies by viewing everyday objects, then going beyond them? More generally, why postulate that senses are responsible for building that bridge that extends to the divine? I think that such a vision suffers from the dualistic conception that - at various points of your reasoning - seems to govern your exposition. The ability of viewing “in the individual object an idea that pushes it beyond the object itself” which you describe as exceptional artistic quality, is actually the universal way of perception of the sensory world, for all humans, in all circumstances. You are as artistic in your constantly unfolding relation to the world as your own description of an artist is. You are, in your own definition, a supreme artist of every moment! There is no need to alias supposedly irregular or singular artistic behaviors or personalities. Reality is lawful and so is art!

Man would not need to bridge himself to the divine spirit through the creation of art if he were already in connection with it. This severance of man from the divine spirit can be attributed to his individual ego development. Thus, the individual becomes capable of creating a bridge between himself and the divine spirit through the creation of art when his individual element is first severed from that divine spirit by means of his ego development.

To me, this convoluted conclusion that ego is the necessary element by which the artist severs himself from the divine, only to reconnect again with it through art, illustrates your effort to insert the inflated ego as precisely the final piece that would create internal consistency in your theory. But just as the last piece of a jigsaw puzzle is, this conclusive piece of your theory is heavily constricted. And with cascade effect, it forces you to state one additional, heavily constricted and separating conclusion, namely that the artist creates, as the heartbeat of nature, while the truth seeker receives, as a vessel. Another dualism your theory forces you to sink in, that obscures for you the incomparably creative nature of truth-seeking. So the problem with this consistent idea-building you are working with is just that - the consistency it builds is merely internal, and only survives under the lifeline of your many postulates. In other words, you have formed a theory that you like, as a bubble, starting from the middle of your personal preferences. Now the question is: can the bubble remain integral when you sever it from the various postulates that have scaffolded its formation?


My current impression is that the clear answer is no. With this, I remain open to possible mistakes on my part, both on the interpretation of your reasoning and on the logic I am applying to it. This openness is further enhanced by the fact that Ashvin, who usually does not leave any slightest expression of logical inconsistency or dualism unattended, has chosen to defocus from the written page at this occasion. But regardless of that, I would be interested in better understanding your viewpoint, that, even amidst the criticism I have expressed here, signals to me an abundant and compelling inner activity.

[AshvinP]

Hello again Ashvin,

It is felt we need to either abandon the ideal of collective Love, mystically 'dissolve' the Ego (which really means a lapse into ever-greater unconsciousness), or, most often, some mix of both.

Yeah I think some mix of both should ideally be sought. And perhaps this is where the evolution of man is heading towards. I think an important aspect of the development of the human ego throughout the course of human evolution is his growing ability to “love his own wisdom”. Without ego, we cannot reassure ourselves, love ourselves, or believe in ourselves. We also cannot direct this love onto other individuals, to inspire them to do the same. But as you say, the ego of the modern day is radically self interested.

It is the moral and functional task of man to make the outer world the contents of his inner experience, so his inner experience is constantly rejuvenated by the light which feeds him, and so his blossoming thoughts and ideas can fertilize the world which surrounds him. Man cannot recede so deeply within himself that he cannot reach the light that calls upon him from above, for he will wither and wilt and become dependent on his primal instincts to pull himself out. However, often the artist recedes deep within himself, and as the branches of his livelihood are pruned, and soon begin to crumble, the next light that calls upon him greater impacts his growth, for what remains of him now requires less resources to nourish.

While I do in some respects view that a change in the artists behavior would be morally ideal, whereby his outer world becomes the inspiring contents of his inner experiences, and vise versa, I also view these people as necessary sacrifices, who are capable of inspiring others to reach towards the divine in ways that someone who might have a stronger connection with the divine cannot. Art is a much more digestible language than the ones which we speak. Art can often help mend the soul in ways that words cannot.

I think perhaps the bold part was misstated, since a mix of both would be abandoning the Love ideal and lapsing into greater unconsciousness via 'Ego-dissolution'. The rest of your post is well stated. It is a good point that there must be 'necessary sacrifices' in this evolutionary progression and that every part ultimately serves an integral role in the greater Whole. I don't want to suggest that I know what Kanye as a specific personality should or should not be doing with his artistic talent - the Karmic forces which weave that talent into the destinies of people and cultures is, of course, beyond my ken. Rather, I am pointing to what we can learn from such creative pursuits and, in the event that we desire to reconcile truth-seeking with artistic creation, ways that we can concretely go about it. In other words, to what extent do we desire to 'mend the soul'?

There are different levels/intensities of mending and I think it's important to discern that, the fact that we directed our spiritual activity to this forum, where philosophical-scientific and artistic-spiritual thinking can be holistically grasped, means our level of mending can reach beyond the opportunities available to the average soul. For the latter, there is a factor of 'receding horizons' or 'diminishing returns', as you also allude to. I like the analogy of the branches being pruned and then crumbling to the extent that what is left requires less spiritual resources to nourish - "blessed are the poor in Spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven". But at a certain point in our spiritual evolution, this requires certain activity on our part so that we don't crumble beyond the point where the next Light means anything to us, rather passing us by unnoticed like a ship in the darkness of night.

It first requires a humbleness in knowing our current lack of spiritual knowledge and an openness towards the higher impulses of knowledge. Again, the fact that we are here dialoguing about these things means our 'soil' is already somewhat prepared for this humility and openness to a greater extent than, for ex., a celebrity artist. Second, we can notice just how attenuated our current waking experience is from our own inner soul-activity. The abstracted sensory impressions and mineralized concepts we generally work with drown out our inner life of activity to a high degree. Higher impulses could be arriving from within which we are entirely oblivious to, because of that 'weightiness' of our current sensory-conceptual life. Cleric offered an interesting metaphor of this on another thread.

As a simplified example we can think of Amazonian natives who are conscious of their land being destroyed but have no concepts of economics, corporations, industry, etc. In short, they are not conscious of the forms of spiritual activity of 'civilized' man, which are responsible for the changes in their environment. So the natives may imagine that their land is destroyed for no reason at all, it's just a part of inexplicable flow of phenomena. But we know that there's living thinking spirit behind the events, which is knowable if we can resonate with its thought forms. This example is limited, because the forms of thinking of civilized man are not that different from those of the native, they are only more convoluted, more complicated, but still they revolve around the basic human needs and desires. To grasp the deeper layers of spiritual activity of the Cosmos, however, we need to explore forms of our own spiritual activity which our sensory perceptions and associated Earthly feelings and desires can't stimulate out of themselves.

Similarly, we have an 'inexplicable' flow of normal waking impulses, feelings, thoughts, and perceptions which bubble up into our consciousness, and seem to manifest entirely independently of our own creative will. It is true that artistic thinking lays a hold of these to a greater extent, but again the question is whether we are satisfied with only that incremental progress or rather we want to explore the even deeper layers of the Cosmic activity which is responsible for outer and inner experience.

Interesting that you regard music as especially special. I suspect the creation of music, more than other artforms, requires a direct connection with the divine because our sensory perceptions cannot be relied upon as a source of inspiration thereto, like we can for the visual arts, for example. We see beauty everywhere in nature that inspires beauty in our artwork, but rarely or never do we hear beauty in nature to inspire beauty in our music. It would then follow that sound is a medium through which we can access the divine directly.

Very good point about how music bypasses the abstraction of visual representations. Indeed, music points more directly to these deeper archetypal layers of Divine activity. We can infer this, for ex., from the science of Chladni forms, i.e. Cymatics. It reflects to us the archetypal tonal and vibratory activity which structures the forms of the outer world, which we now participate in microcosmically with our own Ego-consciousness.





Few can deny the inspiration from witnessing the grandiose musical creations of a Mozart, Beethoven, or even Kanye. But what even more magnificent inspiration lays waiting behind the veil of our intellectual cognition, of the sort which weaves together the entire sensory spectrum including our own inner conceptual life? We can truly open ourselves up to resonate with the vibratory patterns of the conscious perspectives which do this weaving. But certain sacrifices need to be made here, especially that of our Earthly desires, feelings, and thoughts. Mere artistic thinking, devoid of scientific cognition, perhaps even antipathetic to scientific thinking, still leaves us within that Earthly sphere of content. It doesn't reconcile these polar opposites of our experience, by making us more conscious of what we are actually doing with our artistic thinking within the great households of Nature and Culture. Becoming more conscious of that activity necessarily means adopting more responsibility for how it is wielded.


"Music is the heart of man; the blood, which takes this heart for starting-point, gives to the outward-facing flesh its warm and lively tint, — while it feeds the inward coursing brain-nerves with its welling pulse. Without the heart's activity, the action of the brain would be no more than of a mere automaton; the action of the body's outer members, a mechanical and senseless motion. Through the heart the understanding feels itself allied with the whole body, and the man of mere ' five-senses ' mounts upwards to the energy of Reason."

- Richard Wagner, The Artwork of the Future (1895)

[GrantHenderson]

Hi GrantHenderson,

Is this post a poem, an essay, a vision, a journal entry, a question, an affirmation, or what is it? With such an impressive series of postulates reeled off one after the other, you really leave one wondering how to interpret your writing, and how to respond to your act of posting in a way that is respectful of your intention. Please help.

Hi Federica. like you say, I suppose it is just a series of ideas reeled off one after the other, meant to try to address the question of why/how we create art. With that said, there should be no expectation of you as the commenter to provide anything more focused. Feel free to point out any issues, or ideas of your own on the matter.



Hi Grant. Your disarming reply points me directly towards my weaknesses. Thank you! I will now do my best to make good use of this indication.

I know too little of KW’s work to form an opinion or taste about his character and art. Because what I have is only vague impressions, I will simply not go there. There is enough to consider about the why and how of artistic impulse as standalone topics! Reading your ideas, I have certainly felt divergence from them, and I will try to lay this out as clearly as I can. Before I get there, I have to note that much of what I am about to write is grounded in solid and long sought for, but still very recent understanding for me. Despite my keen intention to constructive criticism and fairness, this lack of consolidation is a fact that should be considered for the impact it could have on my viewpoint as expressed here below.

My general comment to your theory is that there is no need to search for the trigger of artistic endeavor in inflated ego, or any other form of over-the-top-ness in the artist’s personality. I see artistic impulse as an intrinsic, inherent human impulse that expresses itself in a continuum across individuals. But had I had your opinion that art is rooted in exception, I would have started from the profound reasons at the core of this idea, rather than from the phenomenon of exceptionally inflated egos in particular. So I am perplexed that you start off with this down-the-road type of argument, that moreover I find questionable. You cite a few artists who indeed seem to present traits of ‘egomania’, but how many more could be cited that do not match this type? My sense is that, if there is anything inflated ego is correlated with, this is celebrity, which is something quite distinct from artistic expression.

My reason for using the over inflated ego as a central element in my theory is due to its correlation with empirical “truths” about artists which, perhaps seemingly, should not be correlated, and which should thereby broaden our considerations when forming a comprehensive theory of why we create art. My reasoning for using the over inflated ego as a central part of the theory is not, however, because I consider the “over inflated ego” to be of utmost necessity in order for man to create art.
So yes, there are also great artists who do not have over inflated egos.

Further, to your purpose of forming a theory for why we create art, not only do I feel that you start from the middle, but also I miss a definition of what art is in your perspective. We can certainly losely orient ourselves by thinking of musicians and painters, but is for example a dancer an artist in your opinion? What about a builder? An artisan? Can a child be an artist? What makes a creation artistic in your perspective? Is Picasso an artist the moment the idea of his first painting forms within him, or does he become such only when that idea is expressed as painted canvas? Or has he always been an artist? Again, for me the answer lies in a continuum between action and art, a continuum between free and compelled artistic impulse, a continuum between expression and potential. But I suspect you see things differently? My impression is that when we focus on the exceptional quality of artistic expression, linking it to isolated personalities and their eccentricity, we are looking at iceberg tips, leaving unprobed the massive, concentric core from which artistic impulse blossoms, in an acclivous landscape of expressions. Maybe I can use a word I recently learned on this forum, to describe what I understand of your viewpoint. I may be wrong, but at this moment I feel you have an aliased understanding of art, in the sense Cleric uses this word.

Hmm, yeah I didn’t define art did I. How about “reaching beyond familiar sensation into the divine and framing the divine into familiar sensation”. So the formation of an idea expressed through a sensory medium. This could either include the moment Picasso formed an idea for a painting, or the execution of that vision. After all, every brush stroke is intentional. The idea evolves throughout the execution of the idea. It is not but the mechanical replication of the original idea. However, I suppose you could argue this in the case for writing music, where rhythms and melodic notes are definitive, and could be definitively captured by the original idea.

“Again, for me the answer lies in a continuum between action and art, a continuum between free and compelled artistic impulse, a continuum between expression and potential. But I suspect you see things differently?”
I can’t say I quite understand what you mean here. Can you clarify this for me?

Your thoughts about how artistic creation unfolds come to corroborate this impression. You choose to see artistic expression as appropriation of the unchanging divine by the artist: "The Artist reaches out to the divine from his individual element, and brings the divine back to him” rather than as a two-sided gesture, also moving in the direction of giving back, offering one’s creation to the divine, or even sacrificing it. I think this aliased vision suffers from the unchanging character that you ascribe, as a postulate, to the divine. If you were accepting the ever-evolving nature of the divine, you would probably be open to see both sides of the artistic impetus, not only the part where we draw from the supposedly “unchanging, perfect and ever-lasting” divine, but also the part where our gesture circles back and joins up with the divine.

I apologize if my phrasing is misleading here. The act of the artist reaching out to the divine is also him seeing beauty in the divine from his individual element. It is akin to communicating with the divine with a single action that has two directions of flow.
It is not akin to communicating with the divine through multiple actions with a single “direction” of flow, whereby we reach out to the divine, bring the divine back to us, and then give it back in an altered form.

I wonder what makes you take this stance. Can we really say that Mozart imagined his symphonies by viewing everyday objects, then going beyond them?

Indeed, I suspect you might be correct that music is in some manner an exception (see my comment on Ashvins post). But the same theory applies -- we can easily assign Mozart himself as the object of his own consideration.

More generally, why postulate that senses are responsible for building that bridge that extends to the divine? I think that such a vision suffers from the dualistic conception that - at various points of your reasoning - seems to govern your exposition. The ability of viewing “in the individual object an idea that pushes it beyond the object itself” which you describe as exceptional artistic quality, is actually the universal way of perception of the sensory world, for all humans, in all circumstances. You are as artistic in your constantly unfolding relation to the world as your own description of an artist is. You are, in your own definition, a supreme artist of every moment! There is no need to alias supposedly irregular or singular artistic behaviors or personalities. Reality is lawful and so is art!

This isn't what I'm getting at. Yes, every man forms ideas, for ideas are the essence of the soul. The difference is simply that the artist is better at forming ideas than the common man. That’s all.

To be clear, I suspect that the artist ingrains within himself the processes of nature which he gives new or altered life to (and again, this is a single action with two directions of flow, not multiple actions with one direction of flow). And if I am to be more thorough in my reasoning, it is not that the truth seeker acts in a fundamentally different way from the artist in this respect, but that they are differentiated by how large of a role the ego plays in interpreting the divine spirit. So I am not really attempting to propose a duality between the artist and the truth seeker. All thoughts, ideas etc originate from nature.

I suppose, to answer your first question more directly, this post was more of a vision, not something I took too seriously when writing it. There are gaps to be filled in the reasoning.

[GrantHenderson]

It first requires a humbleness in knowing our current lack of spiritual knowledge and an openness towards the higher impulses of knowledge. Again, the fact that we are here dialoguing about these things means our 'soil' is already somewhat prepared for this humility and openness to a greater extent than, for ex., a celebrity artist. Second, we can notice just how attenuated our current waking experience is from our own inner soul-activity. The abstracted sensory impressions and mineralized concepts we generally work with drown out our inner life of activity to a high degree. Higher impulses could be arriving from within which we are entirely oblivious to, because of that 'weightiness' of our current sensory-conceptual life. Cleric offered an interesting metaphor of this on another thread.

Indeed, our sensory concepts drown out our inner soul activity. We must learn that our inner soul is awakened in communion with activities outside our own waking conscious thoughts and concepts. The only way we can grab a conscious hold on the cosmic forces that influence our impulses, thoughts, emotions etc is by silencing them.

Few can deny the inspiration from witnessing the grandiose musical creations of a Mozart, Beethoven, or even Kanye. But what even more magnificent inspiration lays waiting behind the veil of our intellectual cognition, of the sort which weaves together the entire sensory spectrum including our own inner conceptual life? We can truly open ourselves up to resonate with the vibratory patterns of the conscious perspectives which do this weaving. But certain sacrifices need to be made here, especially that of our Earthly desires, feelings, and thoughts. Mere artistic thinking, devoid of scientific cognition, perhaps even antipathetic to scientific thinking, still leaves us within that Earthly sphere of content. It doesn't reconcile these polar opposites of our experience, by making us more conscious of what we are actually doing with our artistic thinking within the great households of Nature and Culture. Becoming more conscious of that activity necessarily means adopting more responsibility for how it is wielded.

Great point. the artist ingrains within himself the processes of nature which he gives new or altered life. He should not allow his creativity to envelop in such a way that it cuts off his awareness of the cosmic processes that influences his creativity in the first place, nor should he give himself up completely to these cosmic forces, and silence any alternative or creative means of interpreting them. However, he can utilize an enhanced awareness of the cosmic processes that influence his creativity as a means to more “freely” influence his own creativity. And perhaps, that creative expression could fuel him to more earnestly peer into these cosmic process, thereby enhancing his overall awareness and creative impulse without sacrificing one for the other over the course of many repeated experiences.
In the short term, these are irreconcilable demands on the artist, but over the long term, they feed each other.

[GrantHenderson]

If you're interested in psychoanalysis, I recommend listening to Kanye West's interview with Joe Rogan. Then relate your findings back to what we have discussed here on the artist. I haven't seen anybody who thinks like him before -- I'm just as concerned with what he's saying, as I am how he's saying it.

But it is a long interview, don’t feel compelled to listen if it doesn't interest you.