Re: Sublimation and science and art (was Re: Balzac's hairy palms
Thu, 30 Sep 1999 15:56:57 EDT

In a message dated 9/30/1999 11:41:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time, writes:

Further, is sublimation a requirement of art? If it is, will science's ability to give us direct fulfillment of our needs eliminate art? >>

Actually, the reason i didn;t coment wasn't your oneliner-- it was funny at first. I laughed out loud, but the reason I have nothing to say about sublimation causing art is pretty simple:

I don't believe in it.

I never bought that, but I had to study that stuff in college. And I have Jungian therapist pals who believe in myth and collective consciousness too, and that also seems sketchy.. but more appealing... dreams, etc... Anywayz........ there's no evidence in my personal experience that we artists sublimate in order to create. I think that in Freud's time, Victorian times, that may have held credence, I dunno, but i was a creature without that social pressure to conform- and/or sublimate my desires, I have pretty much done as I please all my life, and I still create. So I didn't comment becasue I really have no opinion.

I do think Balzac was a detail freak, and drank way way WAY too much coffee.. but other than that...

(I will say that when i am painting and it's going really well and I'm doing
good work, it does feel very much like a tantric version of sexual union.
But that's just good NRG flow, happens in bodybuilding too) Nadia