I will agree with OP here. I have always found that promoting drug use for art appreciation is not a classy thing to do. I feel it degrades the intellectual property of the art. Artists create pieces to force an emotional response. Drugs alter emotions. Thus a problem.
As for psychs.
As a friend of mine once said:
Psychedelics make smart people smarter and dumb people dumber.
i don't agree with a word of this.
psychedelics have inspired some amazing art - not just by people who have used it (or are on it when they create something) but art made with people affected by LSD etc in mind. creativity is a form of human communication that is not as simple as a creator and his/her passive audience. the audience is an increasingly active participant in all kinds of art.
what about the story that francis crick was on LSD when he discovered the DNA double-helix?!
makes smart people smarter, indeed. it is an incredible extension of whatever potentials already exist within an individual. some drugs may have the potential to aid our evolution by expanding our thinking and conceptual abilities.
i love playing music on LSD, i am given unfiltered understandings of the tiniest subtleties of sound. a perspective and a perceptive insight that cannot be attained by a sober mind.
if you've never listened to music on psychedelic drugs, you've missed out on something very special, that can't be explained by a dry analysis of "the intellectual property of the art" (whatever that means? sounds like some neo-con idea of creativity; like ideas and expressions are material objects "owned" by the creator, who has some kind of imaginary agency over how it is interpreted - nonsense.)
some of western culture's most highly regarded creative people - be they writers, musicians, filmmakers, painters, fashion designers - whatever - get HIGH ON DRUGS. maybe sometimes, maybe a lot. how many of the raving anti-drug freaks we see constantly on the media are truly creative individuals?
they might be power/ego hungry entertainers - hollywood actors or some shit, sports stars or more likely - politicians - but i can't think of too many respectable
artists who come out publicly decrying drug use, unless of course they are recovering/former addicts (or users in denial).
humans take drugs for so many different reasons - for entertainment, inspiration, exploration, celebration. there is nothing inherently moral or immoral about that.
if you think that the stereotype linking artists and drugs is a coincidence, i would tend to disagree. i am not saying that all creativity is caused by drugs, but the inspiration drawn from various substances cannot be denied. look at popular music from the 60s through to now - it is quite easy to gauge when the performers (and audience) were inspired by particular drug trends, from the amphetamines of early rock'n'roll to the folkies with cannabis, late 60s psychedelia to the 70s and 80s infatuation with cocaine, the heroin and speed of punk rock. art reflects all kinds of things, and drugs happen to be one of them.
sure, plenty of creative people don't take drugs - but a lot of us do, too. being affected by drugs doesn't necessarily taint your perception of something - you don't always have your memory compromised, you don't always fall into the stereotype of the giggling stoner, or the incapacitated waster. the reality of drug use is often much more composed, functional and normal than the media and government would have us believe.
yes, it is human creativity that spawns artistic development, but you can't condemn drugs being part of the artistic process (in creation or consumption) unless you have some insight into how sensitive creativity is to its environment.
creativity is influenced by so much - from social and cultural context, to the issues of the day, to ways of thinking and ways of being.
for the last 80+ years, drugs have been heavily tied up in the social and cultural issues that have been reflected in western art. drugs are currently a deviant, criminal, rebellious activity - this is because of prohibition. when alcohol was outlawed, a whole culture of illicit drinking appeared, and it has been the same for drugs for almost a century - it creates communities of people that live outside of the law, including creative people and those from all walks of life.
i'm amazed that people on bluelight have fallen for the puritanical war-on-drugs notion that drugs are inherently bad and corrupting.
it might not be a "classy thing to do" but i like getting high and going to the art gallery, or dropping acid and going dancing, or smoking a joint and jamming with friends, or sitting down with a good book after brewing up some poppy tea.
to me that is classier than watching television, going out drinking, going "shopping", playing video games or any number of other inane 21st century distractions.
enjoyment of any number of arts are enhanced by any number of drugs, and i must say that one of my favourite things about taking drugs is seeing what comes out of my subconscious and into my songs, poems or sketches when my mind is in an altered state.
art is an expression of the mind, and drugs are capable of altering the mind. i don't understand how people can fail to see the connection there, but perhaps it is the circle of people i mix with.
people might not dig it, but you're kidding yourself if you think art is cheapened by drugs.
haven't you ever been to a gallery opening, with all of the free champagne and wine?!
(drugs + art = bliss) if you ask me
