Harmonising possibilities of art

[WalkAbout]

Hi, guys!

Reading the "Modern Mind" by Peter Watson I've stumbled upon this phrase:
"Hofmannsthal was very ambitious for the harmonising possibilities of art; he thought it could help counter the disruptive effects of science"
which describes a thought from the early 1900s. The thing is, in my opinion, though 100 years flickered by in all their horrors and revelations, I think we, today, still have pretty same problems, even more protruding in the light of globalization brought by the evolution of technologies. So I wanted to ask your opinion and, perhaps, bring about a discussion about art as a unifying principle, whether it has enough power to unify people in its own right, and whether you consider scientific and technological progress as disruptive (or not).

Can people be brought to more gentle perception of themselves and each other through the means of art? Can art, as a discipline enjoying certain freedom and indulgence of expression, undermine out prejudices, pin out fears and bring consciously or unconsciously avoided subjects up to the light of open discussion? Or is it downright impossible? Or not by art? Or only if more (all) people practised art in one or other form? And what can be considered art? Can videogames, such as DOOM, for example, be considered art?

I guess this is a real ton of questions (and something tells me you will have your own questions), but it would be really great to learn what you think about all this!

Warm greetings,
Nina

[Hanajash]

Where was that picture taken? It looks really wonderful!

Right now is very late, and I'd like to write more than two lines on the subject, so I'll do it tomorrow, because this:

bring about a discussion about art as a unifying principle, whether it has enough power to unify people in its own right, and whether you consider scientific and technological progress as disruptive (or not).

... made me remember something I've read some years ago! Though the comparison was not between art/scientific-technological progress, but between nature/tech. But as I said, tomorrow!

[WalkAbout]

Where was that picture taken? It looks really wonderful!

Right now is very late, and I'd like to write more than two lines on the subject, so I'll do it tomorrow, because this:

... made me remember something I've read some years ago! Though the comparison was not between art/scientific-technological progress, but between nature/tech. But as I said, tomorrow!

Well, I've found it via Google Pics, it is a blog about street art, and this is the link to the article with this image - http://www.streetartutopia.com/?p=7411

Waiting to read your input! 

[LUSha]

good topic there Nina  also i checked out the book you talk about, seems interesting
i wrote a few time ago on facebook too now talk about what is art....

talking about art i would think of aesthetic, and aesthetic ist interesting because  (according to Kant) it has basically no generalized standards, it depends on personal taste, on another side it is not a "selfish" need like desire, it wasn't personalized nor a sign of self expressing or individuality in the very beginning(according to Gombrich), it only served for need...only till late years artists start to give 'art' higher value and starts to grow into individual expression

also i find it confusing..because at some occasion, when you see art exhibitions, you find some work almost simple like nothing, some are simply disgusting, it looks to me that as long as you decorate it over with "deep thoughts" and put them in a big frame, it became automatically art, then people start to nod their heads and talk to each other..."wonderful idea" ...
or you can see some very fine polished peace of steel or stone, placed in museum, and with some title or called "no title" and it become a piece of art, i don't understand either

that's why i find some contemporary art funny.

for me art is 1. at very basic, aesthetically comfortable--it should not bring you negative physiological response..
2. it should express thoughts--or purely beauty of its attributes--to the extreme..
3. it should not be to explict...
4. the skills of creating this artworks can be discussed, improved, changed and provide lots of possibilites

e.,g. duchamp's fountain is not art, he expressed his idea, but not accord to my defination of art, the poo machine from belgian artist is not art...simply pukeable...


it would be also interesting to see, what is art for you, what is not..i'd like to post some examples to say, what is art for me

for e.g. (not going to post those photos)
http://www.arndtberlin.com/website/media/artists/Hirschhorn/Intensif01.jpg
1. this kind of works....most of them from Thomas Hirschhorn i don't consider as art
it's too explict and not  aesthetic, they do speak out strong personal opinions but presentation is...for me a failure

2. these golden fish 3d paint..
from oiusuke fukahori
i don't consider this as art

my ex boss introduced me this and said he considered this as real art (i disagreed silently
these are very beautifully and neatly done
but they are in the end a way of decoration and handcrafts and technicals, it follows a restricted pattern that cannot be imporved..they expressed nothing, they are empty
they look amazing not because they achieved in art expression and can talk to you, but technical process is hard, this is the same as a goldsmith who just made a complicated crown following certain pattern

3. https://vimeo.com/55126033
this work i consider as art.
it's installation video from Julian Rosefeldt...i start to love his works
because they are beautifully filmed, they passed my aesthetic standards..
then they expressed---very strong views, and in a very subtile way..

4. http://www.kunstsammlung.de/entdecken/ausstellungen/tomas-saraceno.html
this one...complicated
i see it something between art and a stun
sure i was excited when i saw this, and i saw interview from this artist, he talked a lot and a lot about ideas and how to form...including another spider web...
i'd say, this is beautiful handwork, with reasonable explainations
but not consider it as art according to my defination...they cannot convince me with it


5....and i consider all Graffiti as none art...just personal taste ;P

6. Calligraphy...
this is even harder...
i would consider...if a chinese calligraphy artist, who masters all styles in history, and he invents his own style...like
Zhao ji, who was an emperor and also a innovative calligrapher...i consider that work as art
a calligraphy artist who can only copy the historical styles and did them very good, for me they are like some pianists...they can play classical works excellently, as long as they cannot compose, they are not musicians to me.

7. most..gothic drawings, i mean the popular ones with dark background and a pale of gothic girl showing long hair and leather tights, they are beautiful, and stopped there, they are not art.

[LUSha]

As for "art as a unifying principle, whether it has enough power to unify people in its own right"

i think art will split people into even smaller groups, consider this, the art taste during hitler's rule and this trend of mordern art after war, and people frown upon the typography and styles that hilter loved...why?
art is some times used to indentify enemy from friends, symbols and badges are designed to tell one family from another...you can hardly do this with science unless you twist science facts for purpose

while science on other hand, can unify people and harmonise, because science or scientific way of thinking based on math and actual datas, real science believes not in persuading but facts, and reaching to certain unified goals(explore universe, find a treament to certain disease)
and art goes in a thousand directions..art speaks only to the certain group who appreciate it--its target..science speaks to whole human being

(actually art can be very influnced by science..check cubism and the time when high dimension universe theory was brought up)

[WalkAbout]

Thank you for your long and detailed input, Lue Sha! Especially because I think I've had a few insights and dont agree with some points. I will write a more detailed answer tomorrow morning, after a long party and chat I can't collect my thoughts properly, so need some time. Thank you again!

[WalkAbout]

good topic there Nina  also i checked out the book you talk about, seems interesting
i wrote a few time ago on facebook too now talk about what is art....

I think I have missed it

talking about art i would think of aesthetic, and aesthetic ist interesting because  (according to Kant) it has basically no generalized standards, it depends on personal taste, on another side it is not a "selfish" need like desire, it wasn't personalized nor a sign of self expressing or individuality in the very beginning(according to Gombrich), it only served for need...only till late years artists start to give 'art' higher value and starts to grow into individual expression

I think it might has the same roots as individualism in general... I mean that early this idea of individualism wasn't such ubiquitous as it is now, people were more social-oriented, so that art should have been appealing more to the general taste, rather then being individualistic, but now, when individualism is valued much more than generality, individual expression comes on stage, and that is natural, I think... At least natural in terms of human nature evolving in new socioeconomic surrounding or something like that. How do you think?

also i find it confusing..because at some occasion, when you see art exhibitions, you find some work almost simple like nothing, some are simply disgusting, it looks to me that as long as you decorate it over with "deep thoughts" and put them in a big frame, it became automatically art, then people start to nod their heads and talk to each other..."wonderful idea" ...
or you can see some very fine polished peace of steel or stone, placed in museum, and with some title or called "no title" and it become a piece of art, i don't understand either

that's why i find some contemporary art funny.

Here comes my - albeit, obvious to other people, I guess - insight, for which I'm really thankful! It seems that art can't be divided from the cultural (in the wider understanding of the world, including technological and scientific progress, for example) context. Which is why many people now struggle to understand ideas beyond abstractionists, for example - the context changed, with its changed the clues that were understood stopped being this obvious, so to understand certain works you actually need a dictionary or more or less full understanding of that epoch! But of course there are people that would nod their had to whatever rings louder, but I think we should omit them from discussion, mostly they just don't want to think about it, and it's fine, nobody is obliged to...

It's interesting that music, on the other hand, does not need such a dictionary - it talks straight to the heart and soul, and either hooks you or not. Which means that, might be, in terms of perception music is much easier and is a much better means of harmonising society than visual art... Cool.

for me art is 1. at very basic, aesthetically comfortable--it should not bring you negative physiological response..
2. it should express thoughts--or purely beauty of its attributes--to the extreme..
3. it should not be to explict...
4. the skills of creating this artworks can be discussed, improved, changed and provide lots of possibilites

e.,g. duchamp's fountain is not art, he expressed his idea, but not accord to my defination of art, the poo machine from belgian artist is not art...simply pukeable...


it would be also interesting to see, what is art for you, what is not..i'd like to post some examples to say, what is art for me

And here I disagree... Art is not necessary has to be psychologically comforting. Art can, should and would be provocative, because art is a response to something happening in the society, the undercurrent ideas and fears, and bringing them up to the surface is one of the goals of art, at least as I see it. For art starts where you start thinking not only about the form, but also about what is filling this form. Art is explorative, and this exploration is either directed inward, or outward.
Art for me is this, for example: http://zothiqueelultimocontinente.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/03-alfred-kubin-nuestra-madre-tierra-unser-aller-mutter-1901-02-pen-and-ink.jpg or http://www.bainclan.co.uk/images/gen/Giger-necronom-iv121310_L.jpg
It doesn't make me jump with joy, neither it is aethetically appealing, but it disturbs me and makes me think, explore what it was inside me that got this disturbed and why it is so, what did he want to express. I could go on, but I think you will understand. But I also love and appreciate beautiful art, of course, but the main thing for me is still to see an idea beyond it, or a different way of perceiving/seeing/understanding things. As with your work which I have in my room now, it really stroke a chord within me, because it had a meaning in my eyes that was very timely and very important.

[WalkAbout]

As for "art as a unifying principle, whether it has enough power to unify people in its own right"

i think art will split people into even smaller groups, consider this, the art taste during hitler's rule and this trend of mordern art after war, and people frown upon the typography and styles that hilter loved...why?

Because they can't distinguish personality from art [and because it still hurts survivors, who saw it in those situations]. It will be solved in some centuries by reinventing them again 

art is some times used to indentify enemy from friends, symbols and badges are designed to tell one family from another...you can hardly do this with science unless you twist science facts for purpose

while science on other hand, can unify people and harmonise, because science or scientific way of thinking based on math and actual datas, real science believes not in persuading but facts, and reaching to certain unified goals(explore universe, find a treament to certain disease)
and art goes in a thousand directions..art speaks only to the certain group who appreciate it--its target..science speaks to whole human being

Here comes the problem: actually, science is indifferent, which means you can twist the results both ways. No scientist working with nuclear physics dreamed of making a bomb, but everybody is scared about it now. Unification in science happens in small groups working on the same set of tasks, and unity through science is possible only when the majority of population will be both interested and willing to understand the language science is speaking in - maths. Results are applied to everyone, yes, but it is results, not the science itself... Here, in my country, many people scorn official medicine and fall back to the weird stuff they call traditional medicine (which is not this one normal herbal thing, no, I'm not talking about it), mostly because they are scared and can't understand, and when you can't understand, you feel distrust...

I think I should give it more thought, somehow I'm stuck with this.

(actually art can be very influnced by science..check cubism and the time when high dimension universe theory was brought up)

Yes, I know That's why I opened this topic, because this merging is very interesting, but somehow I can't get to understand it [with my standards of understanding something, that is...]

[LUSha]

I mean that early this idea of individualism wasn't such ubiquitous as it is now"

exactly, i think that's the reason. when it is hard for people to create value in society(or it's too greedy and wants more value than people can create), then there'll be less individualism.
the way it evolves with time is actually evolves with economic situation

The socalled pursue for art and aethetics is based on sufficient material needs, someone has to be first
feed then able to enjoy a spiritual pleasure, otherwise art is only a way of "being useful"--like decorating the church glass to serve the church, the rich--who wants a family potraits etc.
so when the world/society evolves, more values were created, and that freed people from endless slave work, and then able to enjoy art.
I think individualism is real human nature, because it's selfish, it's trying to present oneself and gaining even more resource--and this is natural because it is genetic, generality a compromised way for survival, to get better chance and reduce individual risk--hunters unified to hunt huge animals, the nation calls for citizens to donate, a couple get married to raise children   individualism appears when economic is good.
imagine if a child is born in war, and all propaganda in this nation calls for soldiers, all he learned is to protect his motherland, and any individualism is considered as selfish

Art is not necessary has to be psychologically comforting

Here i think, by aethetically appealing i did not mean psychologically comforting, it has nothing to do with if pretty or not (refer to some pretty gothic drawings, which i don't consider as art)
but basic skills of being able to create, if the artist understands what he's doing

i'll take music for e.g., Irgendein Arsch ist immer unterwegs the content ist provoking, which i like,
because it is for first pleasant -- there's a delicate compose behind it still follows the rule of creating music,
imagine someone who never masters music and wrote random notes out of tune, and singing dreadfully
with the same text, i don't think that's music, that person would only be an attention whore...
same with other kind of 'less pretty music' like death metal, if they follow some rules(of a good death metal music), it would still sound very harmonious.
there i have this attitude toward Thomas Hirschhorn whose installation i showed above: he could've expressd the same provoking thoughts with better skills, the content and the way he presents it look very clumsy to me.
The image you posted i don't see a problem with it, it is exaggered body figure with correct propotion, also drawing an ugly face doesn't mean the drawing is ugly.
But even abstract follows rules--a good abstract paint actually follows more rules than realistic paint and trains brain even more, i saw Picasso's exhibition, the strict sketch trainings, accurate lines, composition study, and all those exercise sketches of bulls, lines were carefully arranged. his abstraction is not from nowhere

"science is indifferent"

I agree! i prefer people with such features, as i do enjoy emotions--in art, but in reality, too much emotion and lack of logic, and....anti-intellectualism, can give me hard times communicating with such people is hard enough don't even think you can unite them.
As for traditonal medicine we have same problem some methods cannot pass blind experiment, and some traditonal medicine advocator would use patronism to protect tradition medicine and claim they don't want accept a western standards, and for them traditional means good.....umm what did i say about overemotional and illogical person?

[WalkAbout]

First of all - thank you for participating, Lue Sha! I really love this discussion, it makes me think and challenge my point of view, I really value it very much! Sorry for not responding faster, I don't always have enough time to write a proper response!

exactly, i think that's the reason. when it is hard for people to create value in society(or it's too greedy and wants more value than people can create), then there'll be less individualism.
the way it evolves with time is actually evolves with economic situation

Mmm, which made me recall Sparta, actually... and their military culture. I don't think that I understand what do you precisely mean by "value" in this context, but then yes, I agree with your notion that it really evolves with economic situation, it is indeed connected to the welfare of economic...

Here i think, by aethetically appealing i did not mean psychologically comforting, it has nothing to do with if pretty or not (refer to some pretty gothic drawings, which i don't consider as art)
but basic skills of being able to create, if the artist understands what he's doing

i'll take music for e.g., Irgendein Arsch ist immer unterwegs the content ist provoking, which i like,
because it is for first pleasant -- there's a delicate compose behind it still follows the rule of creating music,
imagine someone who never masters music and wrote random notes out of tune, and singing dreadfully
with the same text, i don't think that's music, that person would only be an attention whore...
same with other kind of 'less pretty music' like death metal, if they follow some rules(of a good death metal music), it would still sound very harmonious.

Here I slightly disagree... Pleasantness of music to me is comprised of two parts that should not be mixed together: one essential, which is about what you called harmony, I suppose, and which is sound and its composition as waves we perceive with out inner ear which is later on understood by our brain as music; and the second part, which starts from the moment our brain recognised frequencies, amplitudes, harmonics and so on. The trouble here is, that you mention 'rules', but the actual music as it is - sounds - we can perceive only through a veil of our perception, which can be clouded by many things, some of which cultural, some of which personal and innate. Which is, if your ear is untrained to atonal music, and you were raised only listening to classical metre or how it is called, you might not neither like nor be able to perceive the beauty of such music. Of course we can use some mathematics and process music so that we will see its Fourier transform and through this try to define which is good music and which isn't, but even this will be way too complicated, because the result will always be perceived through a veil, which is deeply personal to all of us. When I mentioned 'psychologically comforting' I partially meant it as 'not disturbing a person's perception veil', which is not making a person cringe almost physically [and sometimes physically it is].

Which makes me return to a thing you mentioned - that to you musicians that are not composers are not really creators, that they are something like craftsmen. Here it is again: composers give text like a text in a poem, but how it will be read out is a question for the actor. Of course, if the poem is good, and is always read by good actors, you might think they are the same; but in fact, and to an ear that is trained, it may be a ravine present between two actors. There is nothing bad or marking in not valuing it - and this is my point, actually - nobody can perceive everything with the same clarity, but certain things are innate to us all, and that's why I suppose that art can bring harmony to people, right because when it speaks to something innate to us all it can reach to all of us. But might be I am way too optimistic and, indeed, everybody must learn more math (not that I don't agree, but... )  

there i have this attitude toward Thomas Hirschhorn whose installation i showed above: he could've expressd the same provoking thoughts with better skills, the content and the way he presents it look very clumsy to me.

Here, I think, the value of the work might have been exactly in putting something that should not have been in other circumstances displayed in a museum - something clumsy in a museum! - which is thought-provoking in itself. There are many layers of meaning, and the sheer place of installation might be used as a way to underpin something, which is what I suppose might have been the initial desire of the artist.

The image you posted i don't see a problem with it, it is exaggered body figure with correct propotion, also drawing an ugly face doesn't mean the drawing is ugly.

I guess I chose a wrong example For me too it isn't about ugliness or prettiness - but this type of work makes some people repulse because here he experiments with human and inhuman, creates impossible and dark things, and for many even the very idea of making something not perfect with human body - or parts of human body - is a torture in itself. Rules there should be when you need to tune the carrier of your meaning, but otherwise it is a matter of feeling, meaning and perception to define the form of an art object. See, this might seem a bit strange, simply because it's my personal philosophy: if something makes me feel some strong emotions, however strong they are, it means that there's something that should be looked into. Thus psychologically discomforting art for me has it's value because it makes me think not only about the art object, the place and time where it is, but also, probably, discover something about myself and my personal boundaries of perception. I think I write rather messy, but I hope you are not yet angry with me for my wordiness 

I agree! i prefer people with such features, as i do enjoy emotions--in art, but in reality, too much emotion and lack of logic, and....anti-intellectualism, can give me hard times communicating with such people is hard enough don't even think you can unite them.

But they are united in some way... we all - especially in recent years - share one culture of consumerism... I wish we would all share a culture of altruism, though! 

As for traditonal medicine we have same problem some methods cannot pass blind experiment, and some traditonal medicine advocator would use patronism to protect tradition medicine and claim they don't want accept a western standards, and for them traditional means good.....umm what did i say about overemotional and illogical person?

Well, I think it is evolutionary, after all, how it was...primal instinct? Fight, flight or freeze. Here it is in the form of "DON'T THINK. DO!". But still, I think it is our fault - by 'us' here I presume myself, however that is far-fetched for the time being, as belonging to scientists - and the fault of governments and other educated people to spread the knowledge in a more suitable, digestible form for people however emotional they are and susceptible to prejudices and superstitions. We all want to live and be healthy, they too. How to talk about it is a very, VERY hard question, because nobody actually knows. But I hope! 

[WalkAbout]

I think I finally can formulate my thoughts on why I consider arts as harmonising (if only in perspective) and possible to unite people (actually, thanks to Nikita's topic on certain similarities in the gothic world ^.^).
Science doesn't ask questions like "What is the meaning of life?" which are, whatever might be a commonplace belief now, of huge importance to one's mind. A full-fledged personality knows the answer on such a question for him/herself; during our growth into ourselves we ask this question over and over again (and during our life, too). It is the realm of arts to try find a way of answering this question. Of asking difficult, disturbing questions that we might try to overlook, but whose importance would sooner or later hit us on the head reveal itself. Some fall into depression because of it. Some even die. Thus arts are no less important than science in preserving human health - and in terms of mental health arts mean even more. Raw art's sincerity gives a clue to the depth of human mind - and thus emerge ways of healing it. Actually, I recall this fact to be known in the Ancient Greece and Rome, because doctors used to prescribe music to their clients together with medicine.

Anybody feels like talking on the subject?.. Anyone?.. 

[Sunny]

Oh, what a nice topic is this! I would like to join it...

"We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admires it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.
All art is quite useless.
O. Wilde

Is art really useless? Yes. No piece of art has ever stopped a war, no painting has ever cured a wound, no music has eased sufferings. It won't feed you, it won't warm you, it won't give you a place to live in. Yet still... Why then during the Second World War there were movable troops of actors, musicians who came to the very camps and why then soldiers visited those performances? Why in the poorest hut you may come across a simple piece of paper on the wall with some painting or may find loads of books?..

Can art unite people? No. Just one example: it raises discussions. Sometimes fierce. And they make enemies. And they make friends. A small group of friends, sometime life-long ones, and having these you will be content, even happy, among the turmoil and disunity. But it can't move a crowd.

Can art solve any problems in our society? No. However burning the question would be shown or investigated, however correct and just and obvious the solution may seem there always will be other opinions, other ways... But if you, personally, is struck to the very heart, if a book/painting/music... turns your personal world upside down, if it makes your soul purer, if it opens your eyes and gives you the answers - is all this not the way of solving your personal problems?

And what is art? The hardest question of all, actually. And the answer to it one can find for himself, and himself only.
For me art is something that makes you feel. Feel love, doubt - even hatred. But never leaves you indifferent. Something that makes you come to it again and again to see, to hear, to read, TO COMPREHEND THE BEAUTY. 'Cause for me art means Beauty. Not of the plot but of means. And these are able to make even obscene things beautiful.

So is art really useless? Yes. And science proves that love is useless, too. But can we live without love?..

Science... What is it? Indifference of logic and cruelty of bare facts. Oh, yes, we've got no right to undervalue its use. It feeds, cures, gives us houses to live in... And it makes wars creating horrible things which were intended to be useful and beneficial (yes, Nina, I would like to use the same example with a nuclear bomb  ). And it states that to give a birth to a child you need not love, you need not even a partner. And it gives answers to the very question where we came from through cloning, various attempts to create even our Universe, and so on and so forth, but who knows where these answers may take us?

It may seem that I'm against science and progress and disregard scientific achievements. But no, and moreover I'm the one who graduated from a technical university. And I would like to say that I truly consider that technological and scientific progress is necessary for us and our society actually can't exist without it.

But here let me mention the book "Frankenstein" by Mary Shelly. Hasn't it shown the world that the main thing in all researches and inventions is the responsibility we should have for the result? If we keep this in mind then Science will no longer be disruptive.


But Art can't help Science in this way. The book exists, and here we are with nuclear bombs, climate weapon, ecstasy and other drugs... The list is without an end, I guess. And all of these, mind, began with good intentions.

But if Art really can help those who would comprehend, if it will give comfort to those who are lost in their ways,if it really can save even one life of a person who would change his mind listening, reading, watching, then it's not useless. And it's something which won't change the world, but will change lives. And is it not enough for the beginning of global changes?

So here I am with my thoughts and pretty messy ones, I must confess. But I've done my best to put them in order. 

[LUSha]

sorry dont have much time now have to work for final

but do have a short question, what do you think of relation between art and libido?

[Sunny]

Let me answer.

Can I really say anything new?
Stresses, problems, failures, sufferings (may I not use the word "sexual"?)- all these have to be thrown away, forgotten. Or the mind will crack. Or the soul will perish. And trying by all means to get rid of them, some find the salvation in creating.

Any art in its very beginning is an inspiration. And the inspiration is love. Or will it be better to say not love, but a burning desire to feel the love eternal, or to possess the one you desire with all your heart (and body)? That's when you feel the urging necessity to create.

Art has different forms. 

Someone will show a problem in our society and plead, and seek for its solution. And his heart will ache with love to his Motherland, to its people. He is a genius.
But the time will pass, and the problems will change, and only historians and critics will continue to admire the astounding exactness of description.

Someone will depict a marvellous scenery, cherishing every leaf, every cloud, every slight breath of wind he sees, feels or imagines. And he is a genius, too.
But tell me, please, if the eyes not shining with love, however desperate it may be, can see all this beauty?

And someone will put all his personal love, his own desire - or will it be better to say the lack of it? - into his creation. And he will write a love-story with a brush, with just seven notes, or with plentiful words... And as a result he will have a masterpiece, suviving the ages.

Any masterpiece, however epic it would be, has love in its very core.

And most of genii were unhappy in their lives.

[WalkAbout]

Sunny, thank you very much for participating in the discussion! And I almost completely disagree with you
Once I have more time I will write it more detailed, quite a few things to define for myself as well, it's going to be interesting... But one thing - geniuses don't have to be miserable. And in the course of history there was quite a few happy geniuses

Lue Sha, darn, I feared you would ask it It needs quite some time to think it over, especially to properly wrap it in words, but I think there's a connection, yet I doubt it is as direct as Sunny proposed in her answer. I see it as a more subtle one, yet the phrase you liked so much some time ago - that art and lust arise from the same root - seems to be quite true, though I'd put some limitation to what extend it holds true. I think I will have time to collect my thoughts and write what I think on Monday evening. Btw, what is your opinion on that?