We mostly disapprove of people who succeed in physical activities through the use of drugs of some kind. Should we apply the same criteria to cerebral activity (music/art/writing/theatre/etc)?

If you can’t come up with a good idea and implement without using some mind altering substance then you’re not good enough?

It just seems to be accepted that creative people will do drugs/be pissheads etc and it’s just ‘part of their personality’. Does it give them an unfair advantage over the more sober members of whatever area of the arts they work in?

Should the Tate start testing people for banned substances before it shows their work? Should I bin my Jimi Hendrix stuff?

Only American ones. British ones who get caught, write a novel about it and carry on regardless should be hero worshiped….

YAWN

Only American ones. British ones who get caught, get punished, serve their punishment then come back and show some attrition for their actions, write a novel about it and carry on regardless should be hero worshiped….

Only when in competition.

Compulsory blood tests for Booker/Whitbread/Turner candidates.

Only American ones. British ones who get caught, get punished, serve their punishment then come back and show some attrition for their actions because its the only way they can earn money, write a novel about it and carry on regardless should be hero worshiped….

We should see how good the creatives are on a bike and vice-versa.

I think in creative field drugs are much more incidental than people like to think. Its more the romance that consumers (of the arts and of drugs) attach to the drugs than than any real creative charge a drug can give to someone’s art. People attach the aesthetics and fashions of an era to the drug of choice at that time, its not necessarily the other way around.

I pondered this the other day, where do you draw the line?

If Freddie McGnarrr was caught chilling out/getting pepped up before crankworx we’d rpobably be a bit mehhhhhh. What if he took HGH to recover from an injury and get back into competition quicker? What if he took HGH to allow him to complete a tripple backflip?

I think in creative field drugs are much more incidental than people like to think. Its more the romance that consumers (of the arts and of drugs) attach to the drugs than than any real creative charge a drug can give to someone’s art. People attach the aesthetics and fashions of an era to the drug of choice at that time, its not necessarily the other way around.

I just about agree with this. I think certain drugs can help people see things differently (breaking out of cultural and sociological patterns for example), but in terms of the immediate act of fashioning ideas and artifacts a clear head is preferable to a neuronally scrambled one.

Define ‘creative’.

Drugs inhibit clear thought. I’d fire anyone who came to work stoned.

It’s a stupid question and the following statement displays ignorance:

It just seems to be accepted that creative people will do drugs/be pissheads

Accepted by whom? I suspect that this is just a reflection of your own (ill-informed) image of a ‘creative type’. In real life, creative people tend not to fit that image at all, but are people who tend to like to stay in control of their brains.

(People who want to be seen as creative, on the other hand, or who are seeking to justify their drug-taking…)

It just seems to be accepted that creative people will do drugs/be pissheads
Accepted by whom? I suspect that this is just a selection of your own (ill-informed) image of a ‘creative type’. In real life, genuinely creative people tend not to fit that profile.

It depends on who take as an example: If you chose a junior designer in an ad agency – his boss is going to expect him to turn up sober on a monday morning. If you are Andy Warhol or Jimmi Hendrix your actions are only ‘accepted’ in the sense that Jimmi Hendrix wasn’t answerable to anyone.

Personally – I’m not answerable to anyone either, yet somehow manage not to binge myself to death, with or without the approval or sanctions of anyone else. In much the same way as I’m not subject to doping controls and somehow manage to ride around my local woods without a blood transfusion, yet in the absence of those sanctions doing so would be ‘accepted’

Oddly as an artist there is a lay-persons presumption that your creative output must be somehow drug informed or induced – that if you can create something visually arresting or inspiring, or original that you presumably retrieved that thought from ‘somewhere else’

I was thinking of ‘stars’ of the creative field.

Just like we don’t care whether a cat 4 roadie in Epping CC does EPO no one’s really bothered if the bloke designing the box for their soap is off his head or not.

So, the Shane MacGowan, Lucien Freud, Geoffery Bernard etc type of people who seem to have spent large parts of their professional lives on the piss. Did it change their work (for better or worse) and, if it did, should we worry about it?

Yeah, all sorts of different kinds of creativity.

Your Shane MacGowan there is a very good reason to stay off the pop.

So, the Shane MacGowan, Lucien Freud, Geoffery Bernard etc type of people who seem to have spent large parts of their professional lives on the piss. Did it change their work (for better or worse) and, if it did, should we worry about it?

it would inform their work but it wouldn’t either improve or enhance their work. Where problems lie is where the consumption of your work is tied to your persona as drunk and an addict (or a schizophrenic or manic depressive) – MacGowan’s alcoholism was part of his persona – his failings are rewarded, people love him to be drunk so they’ll love him to death (although loving him to death its taking longer than even he expected)

I’ve worked with artist, proper top flight international artists, how are plainly, desperately mentally ill. Total **** up disaster zones and even when every thing around them is going disastrously, hundreds of thousands of pounds wrong, lengthy legal battle wrong – theres this weird sycophancy – ‘maybe thats part of his genius – maybe this massive disappoint is the art’. He is going to wind up dead.

and I thinkt hat takes us back to my original point – if we ‘reward’ people for bad behaviour (whether that’s cash for TdF wins or for artistic endeavours) aren’t we perpetuating the ‘crime’.

Why do we accept such behaviours in some areas of human endeavour and not others?

Banned from competitive sport – maybe?
Banned from making music – why?

Banned from making music – why?

because it potentially gives them an unfair advantage over other people competing for the same money?

[edit] I’ve no real opinion either way, really, I just thought it was odd that we’re so scupulous in sports to prevent an ‘unfair’ advantage through drug use but it seems to be just shrugged at in the arts but people who don’t ‘drug’ are trying to earn a living in both.

A parallel sporting arena where drugs are allowed is logical in a sense.

Musicians aren’t ‘allowed’ to take drugs any more than anyone else. It’s just that there’s no reason to ban their music.

Whereas it makes sense to ban athletes competing in the ‘wrong’ arena, obviously. If there was a greater threat of a jail sentence, instead of just a suspension/banning, they might stop doping. So that’s an argument for stronger drugs laws.

because it potentially gives them an unfair advantage over other people competing for the same money?

That’s a depressing view of art.

And life in general.

Not sure “Purple Haze” would have been as good if it was inspired by EPO 😉

The difference is that art isn’t competition the way sport is therefore doesn’t require a level playing field. Yes you get “artistic competitions” but they are so subjective as to be almost meaningless.

Why do we accept such behaviours in some areas of human endeavour and not others?

There are key elements of an activity that make it a ‘sport’ in the widest sense and define each category of sport in very specific senses.

Sports need to have an element of competition – a winner, an element of entertainment and some constraint that levels the playing field (literally and metaphorically). The rules that level the playing field are pretty much what defines each sport. In a cycle race – turning up for one race with a bike defined for another kind of race is cheating – its why nobody competes in the prologue in a recumbent, a ducati monster or a helicopter – everyone is constrained to ride the same kind of bike in order for fair play.

So what is and isn’t considered suitable medication and nutrition is part of that fair play – riders can drink as much sugary caffeine as they like – the rules permit it.

The arts aren’t a sport, nothing is in place to make them fair so nobody can cheat

EDIT Kenny was more succinct – he cheated by drinking less coffee than me and not having a cold damp studio that he’s procastinating about going to

Is the issue really the doping, or is it the dishonesty?

Plenty of creatives out there are very open about drug use despite where that leaves them in respect of the law.

apparently most concert musicians take betablockers to keep them calm which in a performance setting or audition setting is a big advantage over someone not on them and as such, more nervous.

aren’t most banned substances (in sport) confirmed to be either performance enhancing or masking agents. The PE stuff will give you and edge over your competitors. Did the beatles getting off their tits really help their music? or would their albums have been just as good? Does being constantly wrecked help your career as a conceptual artist or is it just a lot of fun that makes it hard to get up in the mornings, not a great disadvantage in that line of work tho I guess.

TBH I think you’d be better off with the “bringing sport into disrepute” angle, recreational drugs AFAIK aren’t banned in sport from PE aspects but from promoting “naughty*” goings on.

*ignoring the fact that it’s only naughty through arbitrary draconian historical rulings and it’s probably high time these were changed anyway

perhaps there could be some kind of event for the disadvantaged ‘creatives’ in the world who are sane and sober. you know, to inspire other uncreative types to get out there and be creative without the need for mind-altering substances or mental health problems.

Actually, this has made me think about what professional sport is all about – it’s all about the SPECTATORS. So does a TdF druggy make the spectator experience worse or in fact, better?
We watched Lance cheat his way to 7 wins and thought “WOW!!” we marvelled at his prowess – so his drug taking potentially made the viewing/spectator experience better – increased viewing figures for the TdF and improved it’s profile.

Same with musicians – if there were no drug takers, Hendrix, Floyd, Iggy Pop, etc. might never have made the fantastic music they did – so we would’ve been worse off.

Therefore, encourage the use of drugs!!

and thought “WOW!!” we marvelled at his prowess

you can still marvel at his prowess – becuase he’s not just accused of doping – he’s accused of the being the biggest, bestest doping operation the sport has ever known ever. Yet another world beating history making triumph – theres no stopping him!

I would imagine that it would be a bit harder to prove that drugs give creatives an advantage over competitors in the same way as they do in sports-people.

aren’t most banned substances (in sport) confirmed to be either performance enhancing or masking agents. The PE stuff will give you and edge over your competitors. Did the beatles getting off their tits really help their music? or would their albums have been just as good? Does being constantly wrecked help your career as a conceptual artist or is it just a lot of fun that makes it hard to get up in the mornings, not a great disadvantage in that line of work tho I guess.

The evidence seems to point to a big improvement when they were **** out of their skulls.

They should be banned from competitive music.

I just thought it was odd that we’re so scupulous in sports to prevent an ‘unfair’ advantage through drug use but it seems to be just shrugged at in the arts but people who don’t ‘drug’ are trying to earn a living in both.

If sport was an art drug taking would be fine. And conversely if artists were held in esteem for their physical performance not their creative achievements then drug use would be an issue.

The evidence seems to point to a big improvement when they were **** out of their skulls.

evidenced how though – are you saying that if something is baffling to look at it can only have been generated through intoxication. Or that intoxicated people are the only people who can only create baffling art?

The television industry for instance is full of drugs – theres a major fixture in the industry calendar that is pretty much known to be coccaine party for instance. How much of the TV listings do you look at and think – this is the work of drug fuelled minds*: Bargain hunt? Dispatches? Newsround? The Word? – its all the same industry and the people behind those programmes are interchangeable

* excepting Frank Bough’s gonzo travelogues for “Wish you were here”, ‘Fear and Loathing in a caravan en Provance’ being a particular highlight

http://bryanlewissaunders.org/drugs/

Ban him!

Is “Bath Salts” a drug? OR does he mean he had a nice bath and came up with THAT drawing? (which is brilliant)

evidenced how though

they made better music when they started taking drugs.

perhaps there could be some kind of event for the disadvantaged ‘creatives’ in the world who are sane and sober. you know, to inspire other uncreative types to get out there and be creative without the need for mind-altering substances or mental health problems.

Simon Cowell has a few years on your idea mate…