Michael at 2Blowhards blows off some steam about people involved in cultural pursuits. In a word, they're all nuts.
This is a generalization of course, but his point (which clearly I buy into quite broadly) is that weirdness rather than talent is the defining feature of people with a serious involvement in cultural activities. Read the whole thing, it's a gem.
Further, I don't think he means (and I certainly don't) a completely harmless sort of English eccentricity, but rather a sociopathy that varies from mild to dangerous.
This is not to say these folks aren't talented, many of them are fabulously so. But if I can extend the argument a bit, it is that culturally talented people are not as attracted to cultural activities as is quite another type of person for whom weirdness is a primary facet of their personality.
Like Michael, I also speak from some personal experience here. I indulged my weirdness and flirted with cultural involvement quite heavily for a few years. What I learned was that the people who had real depth seemed to flit in and out of that world, leaving behind a pool of people who were (perhaps) talented but whose defining feature was their odd interface with the world around them.
The worst part about it was the distorted sense of self they seemed to have. They were sure they were "in art" when any level of self-awareness should have told them they were in retail.
Via Chicago Boyz.
P.S. I'm embarrassed by how low my normality score is (30%) compared to the people who commented on the original post on 2Blowhards.
P.P.S. All this makes me wonder about a painter I know who's quite good, but doesn't sell much (if anything). He's odd, and strange, and wonderful in a good friend sort of way, but I don't think he connects with other artists because he isn't fundamentally weird in that sociopathic sort of way.
