A little rant

[lizwilliams]

This from karentraviss: The more creative a person is, the more sexual partners they are likely to have, UK investigators have found. Artists and poets had an average of four to 10 sexual partners, compared to three for non-creative types, Newcastle and Open University teams discovered.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4479628.stm

One has to ask oneself: is this because artistic types are inherently more attractive, or just more badly behaved? It's an issue which has been annoying me somewhat over the weekend in the wake of George Best's demise - a lot of the coverage has been along the lines of 'yes, he was a drunk and a wife beater. But what a character, eh? And a genius footballer!' Tyson gets the same kind of coverage. Since when was athleticism an excuse?

If you're single, or in an agreed polyamorous relationship, then fair enough: it's no one's business but your own. But I'm sure we have all run into a few folk who think that writing second-rate novels or painting indifferent oils somehow gives them a free access-all-areas pass into other people's relationships, or allows them to run around behind their partners' backs ('And that's okay because we're so WONDERFULLY CREATIVE and free in our expression!'). I blame Augustus John, Eric Gill and all those late 19th century artistes who thought that their genius entitled them to shag anything that moved: other people's maids, their own kids...And carries right through to the Bloomsbury Group, a bunch of mediocre poseurs if ever there was one (with the exception of V Woolf), the Factory, and pretty much any rock star you care to mention. It probably reaches its culmination with Anais Nin, who really wasn't all that good at anything except having lots of sexual partners.

I don't think genius entitles you to anything except acknowledgment that you're good at something. I don't really care all that much about other people's lives - but I'd like it if, just to keep a balance, some creative person with a long, dull, everyday marriage was celebrated, precisely for that.

Comments

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

The trend goes back even further - certainly to Byron, Shelly et al. in the early 19th century.

And yes, I agree with you on George Best. I really fail to comprehend his deification over the last few weeks. He was a drunk, who wasted a perfectly good liver transplant that could have gone to someone else, and still be keeping them alive, as well as all the rest.

I'm not at all convinced

[neilwilliamson.livejournal.com]

Two issues here.

1/ Best's deification. I think people who are drawn closely to the arts have a real difficulty acknowledging the artistry involved at the highest level in sports. This may have something to do with the traditional “horror of enforced sport” that seems to have been inflicted on so many at school, but I both write fiction and (just about) play football, and I’m telling you the creative impulse used in both is identical. It’s as much about imagination and invention as it is about technical ability or physical effort. It’s about finding a creative solution to developing the ongoing narrative. And there was no-one more skilled at telling the story, no-one with the physical flair, the technical prose, the overhead eye-kicks, than George Best. On the field his narrative was thrilling and entirely captivating. Off the field, I couldn’t care less. But on the field you simply couldn’t put him down.

2/ Creatives and promiscuity. Come on! I’m sure lots of you know lots of creative people. I know I do – and virtually all of them are in stable, long term relationships (and I’m talking about musicians here as well as writers).This promiscuity thing doesn’t seem to apply unless those involved also achieve fame or noteriety. So is it not the overinflation of the ego, the fawning of the entourage and the false praise that is responsible, rather than the fact of their creativity itself? And besides, the only ones you hear about are the ones who behave badly. The rest just get on with their lives and their work.

Re: I'm not at all convinced

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

Best was certainly a star 30 years ago, but he's done bugger all since. There are plenty of other sports stars of that age, in football, cricket, athletics etc., who had as big an impact, but are not treated with such uncritical adoration. Maybe its because they lived quieter lives.

But do we celebrate someone from the non-sporting, literary arts who's done nothing for 30 years except live on his past reputation? I don't think so.

Re: I'm not at all convinced

[mevennen.livejournal.com]

Neil, I'd agree that there can be as much artistry in sport as well as - well, *art*, although I don't follow sport. But it's the same thing - some people feel they're licensed to behave badly because of their skills, doesn't matter whether those skills are in music, writing, sport or whatever.

I certainly do know a lot of creative people who are in stable situations, and don't feel that their abilities entitle them to behave like arseholes - but I've also come across a number of people who do. I'd say it tends to be the more second-rate talents (but then, look at Picasso...)

Re: I'm not at all convinced

[neilwilliamson.livejournal.com]

Okay, I'll cede that there is a certain "arty type" that buys into some sort of lidestyle that they think creatives ought to lead. These sorts include the muscians who want to be rock stars rather than write songs, and the writers who want to be "novelists" rather than sit around and make up stories. The rest of us just get on with it and fit our creative stuff into our otherwise unremarkable lives and are pleasantly surprised when anyone pats us on the back and says well done.

So, I'm saying that there is a certain type of creative that is more interested in feeding the ego than in actual being creative (which after all is far easier to do without distracting stuff like fame.
Possibly, I dunno.

Re: I'm not at all convinced

[mevennen.livejournal.com]

>So, I'm saying that there is a certain type of creative that is more interested in feeding the ego than in actual being creative

Yes, I'd agree with that. See commment about second-rate talents (but as I did, I'm sure we can all think of many exceptions).

Re: I'm not at all convinced

[neilwilliamson.livejournal.com]

Footballers generally don't have a choice but to live on their reputations. Their careers end in their mid-thirties at the latest, whether they like it or not. Sure some go into management or other roles in the game, but most find a quieter life to lead (usually owning a pub or something like that).

It is likely that in recent years, Best has lived off his celebrity - whatever that means - but from the point of view of those who know football, the respect given to him on his death is due to the fact he was one of the very, very best footballers there has ever been.

>But do we celebrate someone from the non-sporting, literary arts who's done nothing for 30 years except live on his past reputation? I don't think so.

Tolkein seemed to do quite well out of it for quite a while.

Re: I'm not at all convinced

[mevennen.livejournal.com]

Models do. Everyone still knows who Twiggy is.

I don't think they're analogous talents, however!

[camies.livejournal.com]

'Sfunny, I was just wondering about this recently - the current WiP has to do with it and the apparent tendency for biopics of arty people (esp. women) to go along the lines of 'Never mind the art, who did they shag?'* Anais Nin as you say did seem to think that promiscuity was some kind of artistic endeavour in its own right. (Mind you when i was doing the London performance poetry circuit in the late 1980s it seemed a lot of people treated it as first and foremost a dating agency)

*though this may be the way the films in question - bios of Iris Murdoch, Frida Kahlo, Jacqueline du Pre' - were reviewed / reported on, rather than reflecting the content of the movies.

[mevennen.livejournal.com]

>(Mind you when i was doing the London performance poetry circuit in the late 1980s it seemed a lot of people treated it as first and foremost a dating agency)

Same with the Brighton poetry circuit, what I saw of it.

This is one reason I've stuck with the same writing groups over the years - they actually focus on the work and we've rarely had any prima donnas (I say 'rarely' because of the one person who exhibited...disturbing...tendencies, but he left before I arrived).

[sdn.livejournal.com]

::throws fist in air::

thank you.

"open" university indeed. ::grins::

[greeneyedkzin.livejournal.com]

Before it even gets to whom people sleep with, it's a matter of how they behave. Being creative or, for that matter, simply being intellectual is a free pass to the arrogance, impatience, and intolerance with others (especially people in fields not deemed "creative" or people not deemed "as smart") that I've seen some writers, artists, and fans display.

"Smart" isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for acting like a jerk. Quite to the contrary, the way I was brought up, perhaps too severely so. And it certainly isn't a passport to the resentment of other people's success that I often witness. I wish people would just grow UP.

[mevennen.livejournal.com]

>And it certainly isn't a passport to the resentment of other people's success that I often witness.

There's a culture of resentment among a few writers which really doesn't do anyone any favours, least of all themselves.

It's not so prevalent among the genre scene here - in fact, a friend of mine from the 'lit set' remarked once on how civilised we are compared to some of the literary lot. (OTOH, I go to a few events, shared with Roz K, in London and the people there are mainly not genre, but have been very nice and welcoming).

But whatever you do, there's always going to be someone better, or judged to be better, or more successful. Why waste time being bitter about it when you can learn from them or enjoy what they create?

But I agree with you about 'smart' and the get-out-of-jail card. I've run into that a lot and it pisses me off.

[caskared.livejournal.com]

I agree, I know too many people who do the free expression sleep around thing because they see that as being part of creative. When they're single it's fine, but some have relationships and it just ends horribly...somehow the word 'expression' covers up the words 'cheating' and 'lying'...and thus conculdes my sanctimonious comment for today.

I think the article may just have been an excuse to show a picture of David Tennent as Casanova!

[mevennen.livejournal.com]

>I think the article may just have been an excuse to show a picture of David Tennent as Casanova!

Fair enough in that case! ;-)

Yeah, I worry sometimes about being sanctimonious but then I think: sod it. I'm as entitled to disapprove as other people are to approve, especially when the damage done gets close to home.

[fjm.livejournal.com]

No offence. But lots of monogamous relationships end pretty horribly as well.

[mevennen.livejournal.com]

Yes, they do. But in a number of (one or two sided) creative partnerships I've witnessed that have messily bitten the dust, the reason given has been that 'he/she didn't UNDERSTAND my creativity.' And I'm afraid that in a lot of those cases, one can't help thinking: yeah, but actually, your creativity isn't really up to much....

And sometimes, you come across truly unsympathetic partners who resent the time the wife (usually) spends writing/painting/drawing etc.

Bloomsburies...

[rozk.livejournal.com]

I think that the point about the Bloomsbury crowd is that for the most part they were actually trying to find a way to behave decently without God or conventional morals, rather than that they were careless libertines.

I don't entirely agree with your assessment of them, either. Vanessa Bell and Duncan Grant were very minor painters, it is true, but they and Fry helped create an understanding of far better ones. Strachey was a definite minor talent who singlehandedly rewrote, for good or ill, the concept of what it is to be a biographer. Keynes - I would argue that he was a significant prose stylist apart from being one of the most important economists ever. Lopokova was a great dancer - though I don't know whether she counts as part of the group. The Nicholsons were a waste of space in many ways, I'll give you that, but again, they are pretty marginal to the Group as such. And if you are allowed them, you have to include Russell, Eliot and Hope Mirlees...

Eliot was not much for screwing around, as far as we know, but was a shit. Mozart was a horndog, but seems to have done little harm to himself or the women he slept with, because he stuck to women who, like his wife and her sisters, were players in their own right.

I'd argue that the significant question is always the consequences of what people did and do - great artists seem as split as the rest of the human race on that one.

Re: Bloomsburies...

[mevennen.livejournal.com]

I'll grant you Fry and Keynes. I never see Eliot as being part of that set, which may reflect more on my limited understanding of Bloomsbury as a phenomenon than on the actual historical evidence.

Mozart: yes, indeed.

I do also agree with you on the significant question... I suppose the point is that there seems to be something about artistic endeavour, at least in the popular conception of it, which goes hand in hand with the license to promiscuity etc. Whereas they don't say of someone 'He's a FANTASTIC accountant. No wonder he pulls so many chicks...'

It may apply somewhat to politicians. Be interesting to see how far it's related to different notions of power.

[merriehaskell.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking, inherent flaws in the methodology are at fault here. Sure, their study focuses on poets and artists, but is the "creative job" really what these people have in common at the base of it, and not family of origin structures, or being born during the same batch of sunspots? Ok, so the second one is unlikely, but... studies like this always seem shallow in their scope. "Oh, we've noticed a correllation! Let's post our findings, pasted over with some science jabber!"

The most promiscuous people I've known have been biochemists and engineers. Do I think that means anything about biochemists and engineers? No, I do not.

[mevennen.livejournal.com]

>The most promiscuous people I've known have been biochemists and engineers. Do I think that means anything about biochemists and engineers? No, I do not.

True, one would have to look at the size of the sample. It may well be the case - but it isn't expected of biochemists and engineers, so there isn't the built-in excuse (AFAIK!).

[merriehaskell.livejournal.com]

I once heard that librarians were the most sexually explosive people.

I don't believe that either.

George Best

[cleopand.livejournal.com]

a lot of the coverage has been along the lines of 'yes, he was a drunk and a wife beater. But what a character, eh?

THANK YOU! I'm more of a rugby fan myself, but I can appreciate Best's artistry as a uniquely talented footballer. But I can't see why his appalling behaviour over the years has suddenly become invisible. Ye gods! I've just heard on the radio that the preparations for his funeral in Belfast are on a par with those of St Diana of Hearts (and I thought she was a jumped up baggage too and I didn't vote for her).
Ho hum... off to the Bloody Tower for me after that statement, no doubt...
CP

Re: George Best

[mevennen.livejournal.com]

>I've just heard on the radio that the preparations for his funeral in Belfast are on a par with those of St Diana of Hearts

BLEARGGH! Sorry, St Di.

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

I think there's a little bit of wish fulfillment going on as well. Vicarious thrill with the immorality of all those geniuses. If it was all dull and everyday, well, that's what readers and investigators and interviewers already have. I think they'd be disappointed to find it's not all musical beds and skittles.

It's the same as readers thinking that if you've published one book, you're a millionaire. Part ignorance, part hope.

[mevennen.livejournal.com]

>I think they'd be disappointed to find it's not all musical beds and skittles.


Yes, I've already shared the details of my glamorous life. Off to clean up the dog vomit one more time now....

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

Hear hear!

[vogelbeere.livejournal.com]

Would you like to sin
With Elinor Glyn
On a tiger skin
Or would you prefer
To err
With her
On some other fur?

[mevennen.livejournal.com]

LOL! :-)