Does suffering validate art?

Joy is just as profound as pain, more so even. A lot more so. Why the hell is suffering given so much cultural capital?

If someone makes a shit record, they make a shit record, whether they've suffered or not. Thom Yorke (for example) and his existential misery? I'll show the acclaimed millionaire existential angst. His last two albums have been dreadful, and that dreadulness is most definitely NOT ameliorated by his 'suffering' and 'pain'.

PJ Harvey's best record is herlast one, where she doesn't ruminate on pain and loneliness and the suffering of desire anymore, and just celebrates being fantastically alive.

In the words of Martin Carr, "sad songs are easier to play, I'm afraid."

And that's dreadful.

I'm sorry, this is all over the place and makes no sense, but this line of thought, this whole "suffering artist as profound genius" schtick, it's crap, it's rubbish, it's a fucking crock, it's evil and it messes people up.

This "suffering = great art" is a tired cliche; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Dostoyevski and Tori Amos may have suffered, but their "art" still sucks.

xoxo

agreed. especially when it comes it John Lennon's solo work.

Yesterday I read Momus's essay about how fake folk is better than real folk because with real folk you have to prove authenticity, lack of education, etc., but with fake folk you don't. It made me laugh, although I'm not sure if he's right.

It's joyeous and evocative, and has much stronger songs and melodies.

Objectivity, subjectivity?

Different strokes for different folks.

I think Sterling wrapped this up above. Not suffering is a form of suffering therefore the question is moot.

This cliche gained new credibility in the 1960's, when people like Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix were touted as role models for a new generation of self-destructing rock stars; millions followed this myth to their deaths; few, if any, produced anything even remotely resembling "great art".A lot of the music that supposedly comes from suffering is simply self-indulgent crap.

An artist may be inspired by his or her suffering, but he also may be inspired by great art, by nature, or a good cheese sandwich. There isn't any inherent value in suffering, unless one learns or grows because of it.

Other people's suffering is only inherently interesting or entertaining inasmuch it relates to someting universal or transcendent. The idea that one must inflict suffering in order to be more "artistic" (for instance, when Eric Clapton started using heroin so he would have a "rougher voice" like his idol, Ray Charles) is a dangerous thing, and has wrecked the lives of millions of musicians.

Great music is great whether or not the artist suffered to produce it; many of my best songs were written during a relatively good period of my life, and many of the songs I have written because of great "suffering" turned out, in retrospect, to be pure crap. A chaotic life can only produce art after the fact, once one has returned to a state of equilibrium. One creates because one has something to say; however, suffering in and of itself does not produce art. It is merely a catalyst.

Like jesus. or Bette davis in all about eve. or Al jolson, michael jackson, etc. ---- I bet Duchamp thought that there was something kind of sad about toilets.

but the grace is as important as the suffering, and being able to do it with broad gestures while people stare seals the deal ------

But Tabitha, isn't this statement a product of that Romantic cliche? Why is suffering the common lot of mankind and not joy? Isn't laughing and joy just as universal?

The fact that you would question such a thing (as if you expected an immortal, pain-free existence, without any loss or hurt) shows that our modern society has, in large part, cut us off from reality, by hiding unpleasantness from our sight. Homeless people are herded off the streets, so as not to offend others. Sick relatives are sent to die in nursing homes. Poverty is not seen on television or films; instead, we are given a rosy, picturesque view of life. We associate suffering with "other" countries, and expect our own lives to follow fantasy patterns.

Just look at the number of lawsuits. Every time an accident occurs, someone is sued. The idea that death and suffering are integral parts of life, that we are, indeed, not immortal, just doesn't occur to many.

I'm not sure if artists experience more suffering than others; I do believe that artists sense these things more deeply, and are able to communicate it better. Being able to express these things is a means of catharsis. However, as I said, great art could just as well be created out of a good bottle of wine, or a cheese sandwich!

One reason why pain and sorrow are more often invoked by art, rather than joy, hope, kindness, tenderness and other positive emotions, may be that we have, as a society, become so spoiled that we take good things for granted. It's easier to gripe and complain than say, "thank you".

Another reason might be that sentimentality and tenderness, staples of the big-band era of jazz standards, are considered "corny" emotions, and nowadays music must be full of sarcasm, anger and bile in order to be popular. It's the Zeitgeist of the times.

like, say, country and rnb and cantopop

I think suffering can enhance the performance or composition, but I'm not sure the audience can gauge the truth of it.