lkh_lashouts | The Artist's Chrysalis of Social Butterflism Theory (Reply)

Oh dear. Another rant from me. I blame my art professor. Very minor swearing.

I assume that everyone here has read LKH's blogs long enough to at least somewhat understand what I'm referring when I mention her Artist's Corner of Antisocial Deepness Theory. It's a mindset shared by many artists, the general tenets being that artists are fundamentally different from normal people and it is this difference that allows them to harness the creativity of the universe while rendering them almost completely incapable of the daily monotonous interactions with the rest of society. How strictly various artists adhere to these tenets... well, varies. Nevertheless, with the rise of paranormal romance and the vampire genre within mainstream fiction - as well as the rise of the vampire-influenced emo!teenager author, published or not - the numbers of tortured artistic souls that nobody understands because people nowadays are not deep enough are getting very annoying.

I also believe that this mindset extends to other artistic mediums outside of writing. However, because this is lkh_lashouts and because of my own personal belief that the Antisocial Deepness Theory has already been prevalent in traditional art for an extremely long time, I will not explore those mediums.

Now normally I'd be all for the Artist's Corner of Antisocial Deepness Theory - with all of its self-imposed exile from other people and poetic solitude from the world of the mundane - if not for the fact that I think it's complete bullshit.

Really. It is.

Which is why I subscribe to the Artist's Chrysalis of Social Butterflism Theory.

It's partly because of the constant reminders from LKH's blog and partly because of several art professors that I've had the misfortune of enrolling under, but the more I hear that true artistry can only be achieved by an individual that undergoes tortuous struggles within his or herself... the more and more I want to laugh.

And so, in protest, I have set up the Artist's Chrysalis of Social Butterflism Theory. It's main tenet is that no piece of artwork is an individual effort; all artists find inspiration from other previously existing artists subconsciously or not, and it is that creative connection which allows artists to grow and change both emotionally and artistically. That's not to say that all art is derivative and just variations on what has come before because it's not. It's just that most artists do in fact have inspirations and influences that are their reasons for writing, and for one to say that that he or she is a special snowflake floating on the ocean of uniqueness is quite pitiable for lack of a better word.

To really see the difference, go to an art studio. Or our cherished LKH's blog. Absorb the pretentiousness.

Then go to the theater. The orchestra. The chorus. A film studio minus the higher ups. Somewhere where everyone involved knows that the product is a group effort. I'm not saying that there won't be any pretentiousness there either; in fact, it might be equal. You never know. But at least it won't be filled with the anti-social delusions of the deeply misunderstood.