Lately I have been thinking about creativity. It seems to me, that the more creative a person is, the more self-loving they tend to be.
While it is possible to be self-loving or narcissistic without being creative, the other way round - is that possible?
Imagine a painter. What great emphasis must he be putting on his vision of the world, that he decides to express it.
Creative people are consumed by their own thoughts and interpretations and want to put them out there, somewhere, for the world to see and enjoy, sometime - if not today.
(A person could argue that some people create for the sake of creation and not for other people to enjoy. By world, I don’t necessarily mean people though. Anything, plants, rocks, rivers. And the fact that they think what they can create is worth creating, means they must have a sense of self-importance. Does it not?)
A writer must be deeply aware of self. He cannot just be narrating incidents. He puts a bit of himself in everything he writes. People reading him relate that bit to random bits in their own self.
Being self-aware is not the same as being narcissistic though. The line may appear blurred, but people who are self-aware are also aware of their fallacies. Well aware.
Are writers simply self-aware? Or also self-loving?
The other side to this coin is that most writers, especially writers of fiction are excellent observers of people, scenery, human nature.
“Her body-language was fatigued. Hunched back. Sagging shoulders. Un-flexed arms. Sitting across from me, she was reading The Financial Times. While chewing gum - slowly, lazily. The impression was entirely of someone who was supremely disinterested in life.”
I can imagine a writer, Rushdie, Lahiri etc, traveling the world, doing research - meeting people, observing them, taking notes, taking in.
One can’t both be an excellent observer of other people and deeply narcissistic? It’s a paradox. Narcissus had no place in his life for observing other people.
Maybe it’s a professional requirement. Or maybe writers aren’t really all that creative - just talented at observing and then expressing.
Or maybe, my hypothesis that all creative people have a bit of Narcissus in them, is flawed to begin with. Perhaps they are only deeply respectful of their self, their ego.
11 comments:
Good one!! A writer is most definitely smitten by self love. The difference between being self aware and being narcissistic is that in the former case you are objective. Writing about one's faults for someone else to read is clearly a way of justifying / glorifying them. No objectivity.
Even to observe & write about others, requires a sort of irrational confidence in your abstractions & interpretations- call it ego, pride whatever but some form of self love all the same.
What about the Greek concept of the Muse?
The most fundamental instinct of any living organism is that of "survival". Self love is one of the manifestations of this instinct. So I think all of us, whether we write and paint or not, are all consumed by self love. In the creative folks, I think self love is more forceful and they want to survive beyond their lifetime. And I think that is the primary motivation of all creative efforts.
@VVR - Yes yes, although we could debate on the definition of 'ego' :)
@SFS - This is about what drives the artist to creation and not what actually inspires him to create.
@Darshit - I completely agree that creative people want to survive beyond their lifetimes.
Maybe not wholly relevant but this article reminds of an interview of SRK.
Interviewer - Everyone wants to be like you, they want to be SRK. What are your views on it?
SRK - I want to be anybody but SRK. That is why I am an actor. For being an actor you need to have a healthy amount of self-dissatisfaction.Disclaimer - No comments on SRK's creativity. :)
@Shreya,very nice article about creative people.The comparison between self aware people and narcissistic is good example of analytical comparison.
Creative people don't create for the sake of creativity but to express their inner voice clearly.But I feel creative people dissemble their ego feeling to let it dissolve in universalism and hence their words, images and message is applauded by everyone.
I have long back ago read your article on Kanpur.It was awesome and written with minute observatory details. I have also written my memoirs of the city. 1st one and
2nd one are here.
@Vijay, You have explained very clearly about your opinion in this matter. loved it.
Are you so busy selling soaps that you have stopped blogging? I know the comment is irrelevant to the post but wanted to bring to your attention the fact that there are hungry souls waiting for S' posts :P
@Kavity and everybody else reading this - please go and buy some wheel green bar ;)
Don't remember how I reached this blog, but truly enjoyed reading it. Quite a curious stream of thoughts... Good one!
A sense of self-love and self-importance is necessary in the development of an artist's psyche, given that all of art has its genesis in catharsis (of varying degrees, of course) and that the true making of an artist is in the crossing of the proverbial bridge, where he questions himself "Is this worth placing it out there in the world, worth creating? Am I good enough to do it?"
But that is only the beginning, and sadly most artists tend to not progress beyond that stage (and maybe that majority's the reason why the world's left with that particular impression).
But art is what transpires after that, after the artist's dissociation with the self. Because art born of the self constrains itself by that very quality, denying itself of universality. True art is that which transcends its creator and the circumstances that created it, an eternal piece of life that speaks to the world, without an origin, without a boundary. And so is the artist.
Post a Comment