My social media feeds are packed with the news of Philip
Seymour Hoffman’s death, and I can’t help but wonder when we’re going to get to
the heart of the matter. Sure, we’ll see all the typical posts about losing
another creative soul, the perils of addiction, the need for more medical
interventions in mental health. But I want to know when we are going to break
that cycle. When do we break the cycle of talking about the same event the
same way? I guess that’s my passion as a communication scholar.
Here’s the thing – this story is not new. Lots of creative
people die as a result of addiction or overdose. Why? What we should be talking
about is how creativity is constructed in society – that our ideological
understanding of the arts and other creative pursuits is attached to a
deep, inner inspiration and drive. In other words, to truly be a great
actor/writer/director/artist/musician/etc, you have to get that inspiration
from somewhere. And it should be *natural* – it should come *easily* – and if
it doesn’t, then perhaps you don’t have what it takes to be the next big star
in any of those fields. Because there is always someone else out there who is
making it look easier than you. Someone who is inspired in ways you aren’t, and
ultimately, if they exist, then what’s the point of your existence?
Welcome to the mind of a creative soul. A constant
self-critique and assessment of your performance in relation to those around
you. And when you need to turn on the inspiration, it is – in many instances –
a somewhat logical choice to use mind altering substances as a way to do it.
Thousands of stories from famous creative people promote alcohol/drug use as
part of the creative process. As a result, being creative becomes equated with
being a user of alcohol/drugs to achieve inspiration. Sometimes it helps.
Sometimes it doesn’t. And sometimes it gets out of control. But this isn’t because
these people are necessarily mentally ill, or necessarily in need of assistance – it’s because societally, we believe this is simply part of being a creative person.
What I’d like to see
is a discussion of how being creative is a *process* – not part of an inborn, innate creative identity. A discussion of how being creative is hard, tedious
work. Often very hard, very tedious work. Of how it is a constant commitment to producing a
ridiculous number of failures before producing your masterpiece. Of how you resolve yourself to the fact that even when/if you produce a masterpiece, perhaps no one ever recognizes it as such
(at least while you’re alive, and maybe not even posthumously). To understand
that failure is not simply part and parcel of the creative process, but fundamentally that being creative is a resignation of oneself to a *potential lifetime of failure*. Until we
start talking about that – until we start redefining what the “creative” means
communicatively, or what we expect the outcomes of the creative process to be
so as to redefine what constitutes “success” and “failure” in these areas, we
will continue to see this story repeated. We will continue to lose creative
souls because at the very base of it, culture is often inhospitable to creative
people.
No comments:
Post a Comment