Talk:Artistic inspiration

Message to IP editor

W. B. Yeats was not a Romantic poet. Aeolian Harp is by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, although several poets have used the title. Please do not insert references to vanity press books. Geogre 19:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

E A Poe

I just removed Edgar Allan Poe from a list of romantic writers who believe inspiration comes from madness or whatever it said. In The Philosophy of Composition he clearly denounces that notion. Hope that helps. -Midnightdreary 04:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It didn't say that it came from madness, but that the frenzy model was behind it. Geogre 12:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. In Poe's "The Philosophy of Composition" he said that writing is a logical, calm experience based on a step-by-step rational process. There's no frenzy in it either. -Midnightdreary 14:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Addendum (for preservation and to show what I'm disputing): The original line said "Romantic writers such as Edgar Allan Poe... saw inspiration in terms similar to the Greeks: it was a matter of madness and irrationality. Inspiration came because the poet tuned himself to the (divine or mystical) "winds" and because he was made in such a way as to receive such visions." I'll take some time to review Poe's "Poetic Principle" to see if he contradicts his ideas in "The Philosophy of Composition." -Midnightdreary 14:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

He does. At any rate, you have missed the point entirely. It is not poetic composition that is frenzied but inspiration. Cf. Wordsworth on inspiration -- sympathy with the landscape, experience of the sublime, etc. -- and on writing -- rational, controlled, recalled in tranquility. One does not write when inspired in anyone's scheme except Yeats in his very late years. Furthermore, the citation is mentioned in the nPEPP. I'm not going to re-insert the sentence, as you appear to be very agitated about this, but I would recommend that you trust people a bit. Geogre 19:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not agitated at all, my friend. I'm assuming good faith, but haven't had a chance to check out the Poetic Principle yet. Just trying to help as the resident Poe expert. =) I see your point in the difference between inspiration and the follow-through. -Midnightdreary 19:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner. I re-read "The Poetic Principle" and have found no mention whatsoever about inspiration or the sources of inspiration. Poe really is only writing about the purpose of a poem, how to construct one properly, how to elicit emotional response in the reader, and where "pop" poetry is headed. I would suggest that if Poe is relevant to this list, it didn't come from "The Poetic Principal." If you have a source that groups him in with those other authors, feel free to add him back in and cite it but I won't argue. Hope that helps!! -Midnightdreary 00:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The source was the NEPP. However, the contributors there make mistakes from time to time. Myself, I'm only interested in the revival of frenzy/Platonic notions along with the vates notion inherent in the various "Aeolian Harp" Romantic notions. I wouldn't think of Poe as a major theorist of poetry (not meant to denigrate, but merely that I don't think of him as a significant critical voice), although I suppose some people would, as much as I would Coleridge and then, a bit later, the group around Keats, and then all the Victorians like Pater and Ruskin, who wrote about it and about it. What struck me, reading and adapting the NEPP, was that they had remarkably little to say about the Pater/Ruskin/Arnold nexus. I didn't remember them precisely enough to add them in myself, but I think this article is waiting for a Ruskin or Arnold or Pater specialist to add in some context. Geogre 02:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I'm definitely not a specialist on those guys so I'll step away at this point. (And, I'd disagree in that Poe is certainly a literary theorist and one of the premiere critical voices of his time, but we'll end it there!) Thanks for the collaboration! -Midnightdreary 13:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Illustration

The Bouguereau is good. She's a nice post-Romantic inspiration-seeker. I know the illustration from Swift's A Tale of a Tub would fit, but it's kind of mean-spirited. Blake has some inspiration-as-revelation prints, but those are rather cliche. Geogre 01:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few changes, most importantly (to me) the addition of the Pentecost image. You've already removed it once and I have reverted the page. I'm not sure why my changes are so unwelcome... the manuscript illumination is beautiful and bears relevance to the Christianity section. Kalindoscopy (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because I'm a fascist? How about because the sibyl is "inspired," and it's already discussed, and because the "adopted by the Catholic Church" is meaningless, on the one hand, and needs attribution. Because you removed an image. Do no harm, and don't insert stuff that makes no sense. How are sibyl's "adopted?" What bull did it? Did they have no parents before, or did the RCC suddenly begin sending women to caves with fumes? Are you thinking, without reason, that anchorites were sibyls? Geogre (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, you have yet another odd desire to get rid of the idea that Jewish thought is integral to western notions of inspiration. In the lead of this article, you are positively at war with the "from Hellenism and Hebraism," and yet I've explained to you, or your IP, numerous times that this is absolutely non-negotiable. The discussion is artistic inspiration, our concept, and that's the lead, where an overview is provided, and our notion owes to both traditions. Further, Hellenism and Hebraism is a famous essay by one of the architects of contemporary criticism. So no, that is not up for mangling. Geogre (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

WOW...calm yourself dude. I though the sibyl thing was interesting and worthy of inclusion, so I inculded it. Re the Hebraism thing, don't play that game with me. I thought it read a lot better the way I modified it, but if you're so secure on your high horse, keep it as is. I wasn't throwing my weight around... I have no problem admitting where I'm wrong! However, some 'famous essay' does not a truth make. Whatever, though... I can see you're pretty emotional about this stuff, so I guess wikipedia is a big part of your life. That's great: but try to remember that some of us (myself!) are new to the game and trying to develop a wikipedia 'identity' without stepping on too many toes. This is the first real edit I've ever made to an article and already I'm accused of falsifying facts and anti-semitism! Anyway. I saw what you did with the article and it looks/reads great. So thank you, even after the (pointless?) barrage!

edit: I didn't "remove" any illustrations, I only added one and didn't receive any explanations via my IP. Kalindoscopy (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation not needed, when it's referenced

Look at the bottom: references. Now, when the lead says that our notion of artistic inspiration has its roots in Hellenism (meaning "the Greek world" as well as "the era after Alexander's conquests") and Hebraism, what we're seeing is both a reference by itself to Hellenism and Hebraism by Matthew Arnold and what amounts to a thesis statement. The rest of the article explains how it originates in both the Greek world (see next paragraph) and Hebraic world (again, in the next paragraph). A citation is not needed with the whole damn article is the proof, with full citations to each source. Geogre 14:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Again with the footnotes

Footnotes are not a requirement of any Wikipedia article. This particular article has references. They are parenthetical references and intralinear references. Anyone who goes around automatically putting banners on all articles that lack footnotes is performing illegitimate work. One might as well put up a banner saying, "This article does not have a photograph," or "This article does not have a popular culture section," or "This article does not have a trivia section." There are loads of things a given article might not have: no one has said that they're desirable, much less necessary. Geogre (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that footnotes are not a requirement for a wiki article. But the problem with parenthetical freferences and intraliner references is that they often provide very little information on the exact location of the information the reader needs to verify information. I am absolutely fine with the documentation on Plato, the Bibile, and the others where you have quoted exact verses, but I do have a hard time finding the specific reference for the following statements:

• In the 18th century John Locke proposed a model of the human mind in which ideas associate or resonate with each other in the mind. (Which work/what page)
• The Marxist theory of art sees it as the expression of the friction between economic base and economic superstructural positions, or as an unaware dialog of competing ideologies, or as an exploitation of a "fissure" in the ruling class's ideology. [{fact}} (I am not sure where Marx made these statments, and while I am not saying I don't believe you, I have no indication as to which work of his to consult to do further reading on the subject)
• John Locke's model of the human mind suggested that ideas associate with one another and that a string in the mind can be struck by a resonant idea.
• Like the Romantic genius theory and the revived notion of "poetic phrenzy," Freud saw artists as fundamentally special, and fundamentally wounded. Because Freud situated inspiration in the subconscious mind, Surrealist artists sought out this form of inspiration by turning to dream diaries and automatic writing, the use of Ouija boards and found poetry to try to tap into what they saw as the true source of art.
• Jung's artist is the one best able to feel and express the conflict between the "shadow" primitive and the civilized ego and to encode the archetypes of the human mind.

--I am not trying to be a pain here, and I understand your argument well, but it is my humble opinion that if you are going to quote a reference, you should probably give a clearer indication as to where the reader can look to verify/explore the information.Mrathel (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the first sensible thing anybody's said on this talk page. Bravo Mrathel Quand le jour se lève les ténèbres s'évanouissent. (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, it is, is it?

1. Locke did not propose it in the mid-18th century. It's at the end of the 17th century, and if anyone were capable of pressing a mouse button, that person would, undoubtedly, consider clicking on the wiki-link to John Locke and discover, there, a long discussion of the Essay on Human Understanding. Alternately, one could look him up in any collegiate dictionary, any print encyclopedia, or even look simply at any, and I mean any history of Philosophy that includes the empiricists. Or, never mind that, we could go with any, and I mean any, history of psychology. You see, there is such a thing as "common knowledge." Locke's concept of the association of ideas is one of those Giant Ideas that, if everyone doesn't know, everyone should know.
2. Marxism... again, this is one of those common knowledge things. Anyone from "The Cartoon Introduction to Marx" on to heavy stuff like Raymond Williams or Frederic Jameson will reveal that Marxist artistic analysis is founded on Gundrisse, at best, and generally derived from Walter Benjamin and others. (N.b. it says Marxist, not Karl Marx.) The "fissure" is Raymond Williams's particularized language, but it's commonplace in any Marxist analysis. Again, common knowledge.
3. Again, please look at Jung. This is virtually everywhere in his discussion of the archetype and the primitive. Once more, this is flat out common knowledge.

• I am sorry that people wish each article to contain a reiteration of every other article or to have to prove common cultural elements, but that's not how academic research works, not how encyclopedias work, and not how I work. We have links for a reason. The dream of hypertext was that people would click on things when they wanted additional information. Nothing in this article is contemporary research, so none of it is breaking new ground that would require verification and footnoting. This is a historical survey. If Pietru il-Boqli does not possess a general education, then I applaud him for trying to gather one, but I would recommend using the link system. If he does possess it, then he should feel free to indicate, in parentheses, the works where these concepts were first enunciated, but trying to do something as foolhardy as providing a page number would be a ridiculous waste of time. (It would be meaningless for him to give me a page number to his Dell edition of this work, when I have a Norton; there is no actual utility, and these are elements of common knowledge.)
• It's fine if people want to learn more, but it is intolerable to have dullards claiming that footnotes to common knowledge have either usefulness or need. Geogre (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

lulz. I think I'll gather a "general education" elsewhere, away from vanity and emptiness. Quand le jour se lève les ténèbres s'évanouissent. (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

But, of course, you'll only know it if you get a footnote that tells you that you got it? The footnote, after all, will offer proof. Without a footnote, you'll be unable to check something off a list.

Indeed, you will get an education away from vanity and emptiness, but only if the vanity and emptiness are not in you. Geogre (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I shan't make your mistakes! Quand le jour se lève les ténèbres s'évanouissent. (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)