Madman's Discussion on Drug Use (NO GLORIFYING DRUG USE HERE)

[norompanlasolas]

Originally posted by Neb: quote: Originally posted by Melusine: quote: Originally posted by Neb: In that case they had no real skills. They had to take the drugs in order to be able to do their art.

LOL - read that again... Dali and Picasso no skills?? ROTFLMAO!!!
Riiiiiiight, Neb.

I agree that drugs aren't NECESSARY, but completely agree with Madman - they can be used as tools. Whether or not you do so is up to you, and the nature and status of drug abuse has certainly changed in recent history. In Victorian England, cigarettes were a sign of style, and absynthe was used by many authors. That doesn't mean they didn't have any skill.[/QUOTE]If they HAD to do the drugs in order to be able to do their work, then they had no skills. If they merely did the drugs as a recreational side-thing then they could still have had skills.

Using the drugs to get inspiration for a new painting because they had none otherwise would be like a bike rider in the Tour De France using doping to get strength for a new victory because he couldn't win otherwise. At least that's how I see it.

Oh and as for those two not having any skills, it might just be my opinion that their art sucks. Then, to me, they would have no skills. So you can't say for definite "Picasso and Dali are skilled!". In your opinion they might be, in my opinion, not.[/QB][/QUOTE]oooooookaaay... picasso and dali not skilled. you learn something new every day.

OK, I find this a little bit disturbing. If people think that certain drugs should be legalised, then that's fine with me. But informing other younger members of this forum that you a) take drugs and suggest that other people should experiment and b) think it's really really cool, and increases your ability to succeed, is another thing altogether.

I suggest if you want to talk about drugs like this, that you take it away from IW. I know I'm being a party-pooper, but I happen to be heavily opposed to drug taking. I've seen it go wrong far too many times. And every time, it happens to people who say "I don't take much! Not enough to harm anyone! And I'd never do hard drugs!"

One thing always leads to another! Isn't it hard enough to educate people as it is, without giving them positive drug advertisements?

[Melusine]

Originally posted by norompanlasolas: oooooookaaay... picasso and dali not skilled. you learn something new every day.

LOL Norom!

Neb, whatever. You obviously don't know the difference between liking and disliking an artist and considering them skilled. Dali's paintings may be surreal but he does start out with very realistic looking objects. To paint realistically, you need technical skill.
I may not like a certain style of music or art, but I would never deny that this is because there are no skilled artists to be found in the genre. That's quite arrogant. I'm not a huge fan of Picasso, but saying he's unskilled is just laughable. Saying you think his paintings suck is fine - that's a matter of taste. But one can objectively judge technical skill and emotional skill of an artist without making a pronouncement about your feelings on his/her work as a whole.

Aviendha, good point. Unfortunately kids will find out about drugs anyway, so I don't think that talking about your own experiences is going to make a difference. Sooner or later, someone will tell them about drugs in a positive way anyway... But I don't think there has been actual glamourisation going on so far... just people giving their own experiences.
I'm as much opposed to drug abuse as you, but I don't think it can be stopped in all cases...

[ 07-08-2002, 05:10 AM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

[AzureWolf]

This is a favourite of mine [img]smile.gif[/img]

That's a good point Melusine, but I guess the main thing that concerns me, is that certain IW members look up to and respect others. When they see that those particular people take drugs, and that they have no concerns about it, they may begin to think that drugs are OK.

I know that we can't stop people from hearing about drugs, but surely we shouldn't allow glorifications of any sort at IW.

Avi.

[Neb]

Originally posted by Melusine: quote: Originally posted by norompanlasolas: oooooookaaay... picasso and dali not skilled. you learn something new every day.

LOL Norom!

Neb, whatever. You obviously don't know the difference between liking and disliking an artist and considering them skilled. Dali's paintings may be surreal but he does start out with very realistic looking objects. To paint realistically, you need technical skill.
I may not like a certain style of music or art, but I would never deny that this is because there are no skilled artists to be found in the genre. That's quite arrogant. I'm not a huge fan of Picasso, but saying he's unskilled is just laughable. Saying you think his paintings suck is fine - that's a matter of taste. But one can objectively judge technical skill and emotional skill of an artist without making a pronouncement about your feelings on his/her work as a whole.
[/QUOTE]Melusine, if you think that what a painter paints sucks, would you call him skilled? I wouldn't. Others would, because they like his style of art. At least that's how I see it. And there's no way of accurately juding an artist's skill from any non-biased scale since everyone has different ideas on what's "good" in art.

In sports, however, it's different. There we have a clear winner based on something non-biased. Like who got to the finish line first. Or who threw the ball through the hoop enough times.

And, as always, I state that I have little respect for people who do drugs. They obviously need to alter the way their mind reacts in order to succeed.

[Melusine]

Well, most artcritics would disagree with you. Have you read up on the subject or are you just saying that? I'll give you that there can be no clear, conclusive, all-encompassing definition of art (which is quite logical, since art makes you look at old things in new ways, art is renewal - if it were defined to the letter, there could be no new art...) but one can certainly objectively point out artistic skill. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, but I think you might want to think about it some more...

[norompanlasolas]

Originally posted by Melusine: Well, most artcritics would disagree with you. Have you read up on the subject or are you just saying that? I'll give you that there can be no clear, conclusive, all-encompassing definition of art (which is quite logical, since art makes you look at old things in new ways, art is renewal - if it were defined to the letter, there could be no new art...) but one can certainly objectively point out artistic skill. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, but I think you might want to think about it some more...

i agree. plus, neb, would you call the beatles unskilled (or not talented). well, most of their music in the 60s was heavily influenced by their experimentation with marijuana and lsd. does that mean that nsync or britneyspears are better or more skilled cause they dont need to alter their minds in order to succed...?

[ 07-08-2002, 06:28 AM: Message edited by: norompanlasolas ]

[Madman-Rogovich]

wow guys just came back on thanks for the response!

[flibulzbuth]

I'm all for legalizing marijuana. Three years ago, I was smoking so much any other drug, including alcohol, would have killed me. At least, i'd have severe sequels.

Mmm... is there anything better than a small joint with your morning coffee? And followed by another and another? Oops, it's already supper time, think i'll roll myself a gig. Woo! nice meal, now how about a spliff to relax? ... I was so zombie my dealer refused to sell to me anymore. Good thing someone rang the alarm.

So there goes the moral of the story: educate.

The great things about pot that make them VERY different from the other drugs:

-If you're down, you'll be downer if you smoke. So it's no miracle cure to personal failure, sorrow, etc... (as is coke, crack, heroine, extasy, acid or almost any other drug). If you're a looser, smoke a joint and you'll be a stoned looser, not some disco prince.

-It brings another state of mind in which it is easier for you to focus on yourself, reducing stress, tension and that loonie voice in your head talking to you right now (uncontroled, it does provoke paranoia though [img]smile.gif[/img] ). And unlike some other, harder natural drugs, the trees are not talking to you when achieve this state of relaxation.
THIS AIN'T MAGIC: it's good to realize that you can focus yourself, meditate, to calm your body. Some people, mostly urban people never take time to take a deep breath, so a little joint might be a good starter to learn to relax and let all go. But continuing to smoke for this purpose is like doing the tour de france with the small wheels still on your bike.

-Pot smokers are much less prone to violent behavior than any other drug users, including alcohol (obviously).