Writer's Block: Arts v. smarts
Feb. 21st, 2010 06:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tabular_rasa[Error: unknown template qotd]
Wow, good question!
To answer it, though, I need to clarify whether a writer is an artist or an intellectual. The way I see it, a creative writer like a novelist, short story author, or even the author of a memoir is first and foremost an artist in spite of the fact that intellect can and often does come into play in his work. An intellectual writer would be more like a philosopher or an academic, concerned chiefly with expository writing.
In that case, I think I would rather be an artist. The biggest personal conclusion I came to while working on my thesis last year is that while I can do academic writing (and fairly well, apparently), it's not my passion. As I was writing my thesis, I kept thinking about how I would rather be the one being analyzed than the one doing the analysis. In creative writing, *how* you say it is just as-- if not more-- important than *what* you say, and there are no *right* and *wrong* answers. Presentation is more important than argument, Plus, you create the world instead of picking it apart; it's more construction than criticism.
Plus, I think "artist" suggests a level of intellect, whereas intellectualism does not necessarily involve artistry. So picking between the two as archetypes, artist seems the more well-rounded option.
As for social life, I think an artist is slightly better off-- though I think both are likely to encounter alienation and isolation as individuals who are extremely gifted in any field tend to. Our culture tends to empathize with and relate to artists more than intellectuals, even if frankly many musicians, artists, designers, and writers are far more removed from the social "normal" in terms of mental health and lifestyle than, say, professors. I guess artists are more likely to be accepted than intellectuals, but intellectuals are more likely to behave in socially-positive ways.
Wow, good question!
To answer it, though, I need to clarify whether a writer is an artist or an intellectual. The way I see it, a creative writer like a novelist, short story author, or even the author of a memoir is first and foremost an artist in spite of the fact that intellect can and often does come into play in his work. An intellectual writer would be more like a philosopher or an academic, concerned chiefly with expository writing.
In that case, I think I would rather be an artist. The biggest personal conclusion I came to while working on my thesis last year is that while I can do academic writing (and fairly well, apparently), it's not my passion. As I was writing my thesis, I kept thinking about how I would rather be the one being analyzed than the one doing the analysis. In creative writing, *how* you say it is just as-- if not more-- important than *what* you say, and there are no *right* and *wrong* answers. Presentation is more important than argument, Plus, you create the world instead of picking it apart; it's more construction than criticism.
Plus, I think "artist" suggests a level of intellect, whereas intellectualism does not necessarily involve artistry. So picking between the two as archetypes, artist seems the more well-rounded option.
As for social life, I think an artist is slightly better off-- though I think both are likely to encounter alienation and isolation as individuals who are extremely gifted in any field tend to. Our culture tends to empathize with and relate to artists more than intellectuals, even if frankly many musicians, artists, designers, and writers are far more removed from the social "normal" in terms of mental health and lifestyle than, say, professors. I guess artists are more likely to be accepted than intellectuals, but intellectuals are more likely to behave in socially-positive ways.
