Eccentricity

[abraxas]

Do our eccentricities, character flaws, disorders, neurosis, psychosis, etc. effect one's creativity and the ability to express/implement it?

Is a truly ~normal~ personality, truly uncreative?

Would you be willing to let yourself go bat-****ing-crazy to be a famous artist/photographer? If so, what would be your "poison" of choice?

Don't be paranoid, speak up.

 

[TwoRails]

Do our eccentricities, character flaws, disorders, neurosis, psychosis, etc. effect one's creativity and the ability to express/implement it? ...

Yes. I don't see how it would not.

... Is a truly ~normal~ personality, truly uncreative? ...

I say no. I don't think there really is a "normal" person in a sense. What is "normal" in your area may not be "normal" in mine, which is not "normal" in some other part of the world.

... Would you be willing to let yourself go bat-****ing-crazy to be a famous artist/photographer? If so, what would be your "poison" of choice?

No. I have no need for fame.

 

[bigtwinky]

Do our eccentricities, character flaws, disorders, neurosis, psychosis, etc. effect one's creativity and the ability to express/implement it?

I think it does affect our creativity. Whatever is us, which includes our flaws, disorders, our upbringing and so on definatly have a play in who we are and how we are creative. Where someone has a flaw in something, they also have a talent somewhere else.

Does it affect our ability to express? It might, depending on what the issue is. I've met many people who have troubles expressing themselves in simple conversation, but yet can produce amazing art. And I've met the opposite.

Is a truly ~normal~ personality, truly uncreative?

As said already, what is normal? If you are thinking that someone normal has a perfectly balanced right vs left side of the brain type of thing, then I think they are still creative, just in a different way. Just as someone who is extremely logical can be creative in a scientific way.

Everyone has the ability to be creative, but we need to define creativity. Is someone who is really quick with jokes around the dinner table creative? I would think so, just maybe not in an artistic way.

Would you be willing to let yourself go bat-****ing-crazy to be a famous artist/photographer? If so, what would be your "poison" of choice?

I would not. Fame is not something I strive for. If it happens fine, but its not a goal so therefore I wouldn't let myself do anything different, compromise my own values, just to be famous.

Hell, why would I want to hang out with Tom Cruise?

 

[JerryPH]

1 - Do our eccentricities, character flaws, disorders, neurosis, psychosis, etc. effect one's creativity and the ability to express/implement it?

2 - Is a truly ~normal~ personality, truly uncreative?

3- Would you be willing to let yourself go bat-****ing-crazy to be a famous artist/photographer? If so, what would be your "poison" of choice?

1 - Most definitely! eccentric people, as a general rule, tend to see things from a different perspective. That lends itself to uniqueness and therefore not something that we see as the norm. Is it creative? Likely only from the point of view of it's rarity. Is it a talent that can be channeled into creative photography? Now, thats a good question.

2 - Yes and no. "normal" from the point of view as someone with no desire to search beyond mediocrity, as seems to be the norm in today's society, won't lend itself well to creativity. However, there are some truly creative people out there that are as normal as you and I, that mold something from nothing and build empires and legacys from. There is a fine line, though...

3 - THIS is that line I spoke of.... where s the line between genius and insanity? Mozart for example, was eccentric as hell, yet his music is undeniable. Creativity... where does it jump off the end of the pier from genius to ludicrous? A lot comes down to perception... not just from the point of view of the "artist", but the public. Where the artist may see creativity expressed to it's fullest, another sees it as a joke.

Would *I* want to go jump off the edge of the pier to be "savant level creative"? No. I was what some call a child prodigy in music. The signs were there from age 2, formal lessons started at age 4 and I had passed all exams for my master's degree while in my early teens and out of dozens of competitions never went lower than 1st place. As soon as I hit 16, I not only walked away from that to reclaim my "normalcy"... I ran head long into it and smiled all the way. I gratefully cede that path to someone stronger than I shall ever be.

This is one of those rhetorical questions, isn't it abraxas??

bigtwinky... another montrealer. Stiff upper lip, gents... we'll take over this place soon enough! :lmao: :lmao:

 

[DRoberts]

Without a doubt our "quirks" lead our creativity...Just look at Chiller!

 

[Hertz van Rental]

eccentric people, as a general rule, tend to see things from a different perspective.

I think it is more likely that seeing things differently is what makes people appear eccentric - not the other way around.
Children tend to see things far differently than adults do so they could be seen as eccentric. But the Educational and Social systems we have are designed to 'homogenise' our behaviour: Society likes people to all be the same and we like to be the same as everyone else. No-one likes being different because it singles you out and sets you apart.
If however you miss out on this process of being socially normalised then your behaviour and attitudes can be considered 'eccentric'.
I went to an Art College where being different was seen as an advantage. We would do things or wear clothes that made us stand out from the crowd, but we didn't do it for that reason. We did get ridiculed a lot - but what we did that was outlandish became fashionable several years later and the people who had laughed at us started doing it.
We had moved on by then.
I would argue that to be 'normal' is to be boring

But in any discussion of this kind one needs to define exactly what is meant by 'normal' to start with.

 

[abraxas]

conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm; not abnormal; "serve wine at normal room temperature"; "normal ...

in accordance with scientific laws
being approximately average or within certain limits in e.g. intelligence and development; "a perfectly normal child"; "of normal intelligence"; "the most normal person I've ever met"

forming a right angle <-- my fav)

convention: something regarded as a normative example; "the convention of not naming the main character"; "violence is the rule not the exception"; "his formula for impressing visitors"

from:
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Relatively - Crazy compared to your social circle (NOT including the internet and pretend friends (unless they really, really are pretend).

 

[Hertz van Rental]

conforming with or constituting a norm or standard or level or type or social norm; not abnormal;.

That's like saying 'yellow is a colour that isn't blue'.
It's true but it's about as much use as a second arsehole.
There is no absolute definition of 'normal' because there is no such thing as normal.
There are things that we assume are normal but that is only because we do them so we assume that everyone does.
Eating boiled eggs in the bath could be considered odd behaviour by some but not by a person who does it.
I once knew someone who had been married for forty years and had never seen his wife naked. He thought that was normal and I thought it was weird.
Which one of us was right?
And who decides what is the norm? You? Me? A civil servant in some Government department?
Discuss.

 

[abraxas]

Pisses me off when you make me think.

Normal is boring?- Isn't that "the market?"

I think if I could choose crazy- I'd probably run with some type of paranoid-schizophrenia. There's some potential in there.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Pisses me off when you make me think.

Just doing my job, sir. Just doing my job.

The trouble with trying to define words like 'normal' is that there are no absolutes and they are not easily quantifiable.
All we can do is make judgements based on our own opinions. And this takes us in to very slippery ground.
We would all consider ourselves to be normal but if you compared us all then you would find that we all had differences and some could be extreme.
And some of the differences can be surprising.
We Brits think that Yanks are odd in many respects - spelling night 'n-i-t-e' is only a minor one.
I'm sure Americans think the British strange.
This makes it clear that even if you can come to a consensus on what is 'normal' it only holds true in your own small cultural sphere and at this point in time.
The definition of necessity would have to constantly change.
And this is exactly what happens.

And now to thoroughly rain on your parade...
What is the link between eccentricity and creativity?
There are many creative people who are not eccentric.
There are very many eccentric people who are not creative.
Murderers, for example, could be described as eccentric because their behaviour is certainly not normal (not these days, at any rate). Does this mean that murderers are just being creative in an original and novel way*?
If not, why not?
Discuss. :mrgreen:


* You might like to read On Murder, Considered As One Of The Fine Arts by Thomas de Quincey before answering.

 

[DRoberts]

The trouble with trying to define words like 'normal' is that there are no absolutes and they are not easily quantifiable...

True as that statement may be, there still has to be a measure to which the term normal in human behavior can be weighed. To me this is best described in the legal acceptance of the word.

Normal - The response to a given situation by a reasonable person.

Example...100 people are asked to jump off a 20 story building. 99 of these people refuse, while 1 jumps. Therefore it is assumed that declining to jump off the building is a normal (reasonable) response, and the 1 person who did jump made an abnormal (unreasonable) response.

 

[TwoRails]

And that brings us full circle as it depends on where you are for that to apply. In certain little areas, it's "hey, lets go pirate a ship!" and everybody chimes in. That's their normal. Or, "hey, let's go blow something up" and they do, that's their normal. Less drastic but still the same, "hey, let's all get ripped on drugs" and everybody does... and so on. So it still comes down to 'normal' is what people do in their specific crowd and environment.

 

[Chiller]

Do our eccentricities, character flaws, disorders, neurosis, psychosis, etc. effect one's creativity and the ability to express/implement it?

Interisting topc sir. We just talked about this very same thing in our halloween group. We were wondering what makes us do what we do, and the obsession to create constantly.
As for me personally, I have always found the need to create, and my mind tends to work faster then the rest of me. To the point where I wake up in the middle of the night, and will jot down a note or two in a pad of paper beside my bed. It could be a photo idea, a prop idea, or just a place I have to check out. And to answer this question, yeah, I think these do in some way effect our creativity.



Is a truly ~normal~ personality, truly uncreative?

Well...this is a word I have never been called. :lmao::lmao: I feel a normal person is somebody who is average.....they just fit in with everyone else, and nothing makes them stand out. I am not afraid to be me, dress different, wear my hair different, and just dig different things. What I might find normal to me, is out there for others. But I even hang out with normal people. They can be interesting every now and then. :mrgreen:
People all have different personalities, which makes the world a unique place.



Would you be willing to let yourself go bat-****ing-crazy to be a famous artist/photographer? If so, what would be your "poison" of choice?

Yes. If I were to take any of my hobbies serious, I would do whatever. I would be the controversial one that would add the edge to whatever I do.
If it were photography I was to take serious, then I would do whatever it took to get the shots I wanted. I have been checking out the gothic/horror genre, and yea....I would do it.

Don't be paranoid, speak up.
Im not paranoid. We talked to myself over dinner last night, and we were not sure if I was going to answer this, or let Chiller answer it. Wait....is that somebody knocking at the window? . Im not paranoid or am I . Damn sleeves on this jacket are too long.

 

[MrsCullen89]

Really awesome photo's, everyone.
Great work!

 

[Hertz van Rental]

True as that statement may be, there still has to be a measure to which the term normal in human behavior can be weighed. To me this is best described in the legal acceptance of the word.

Normal - The response to a given situation by a reasonable person.

Unfortunately the term 'reasonable person' is just as fuzzy as the term 'normal'.
'Reasonable' people in certain situations have resorted to murder and canibalism. Such behaviour is certainly not normal yet in the situation they found themselves in it was the only way in which they felt they could survive.
The truth is that 'perfectly normal' and apparently 'reasonable' people are capable of acting unreasonably and behaving abnormally and can do so at any time. And that includes you and me.
Just look at what can happen during sales - or if a rumour goes around that a bank is going to fail.
The Courts may decide upon whether a person's actions or behaviour are normal but they would never rule on whether a person is normal. That is for a psychologist to decide (though all the psychologists I have met have been seriously weird so I would suspect their conclusions ).

Example...100 people are asked to jump off a 20 story building. 99 of these people refuse, while 1 jumps. Therefore it is assumed that declining to jump off the building is a normal (reasonable) response, and the 1 person who did jump made an abnormal (unreasonable) response.

But if the building they were standing on was on fire and the person asking them to jump was the fire chief?
The 1 person who did jump would be considered sensible - even though he broke both legs.
Whereas the 99 'reasonable' people would all burn to death.
So much for reason

The only possible conclusion one can come to from all of this is that there is no absolute definition of normal. What is 'normal' will change from person to person, from situation to situation, from culture to culture and with time.
And it will depend upon who is making the decision.