I’m so grateful for your summary of the doc Mason! I feel like he could benefit from the love and compassion of a 12step program. In my humble opinion, the creative process doesn’t have to be selfish or result in the abuse (his son!) of other creators. Ultimately, creativity is a selfless act. It’s a gift we offer to the Creation. I know lots of generous, kind and incredible creators who don’t abuse themselves or others to get their wonderful work done. I feel like this doc will continue to perpetuate the myth that the artists must be tortured to create great work. That’s kind of a bummer- or maybe the youth will see the folly in his example? I hope so! We all deserve to be joyful.
P.S. It was a little reminiscent of Jiro My Dream of Sushi- with the terribly sad father son dynamic. I’m not well versed in Japanese male culture.
Thanks for weighing in, Sarah. I really appreciate your emphasis on the *joyfulness* of creativity. (Definitely something I struggle with!) And, yeah, I agree that we shouldn't be perpetuating the tortured-artist myth . . . and yet for those of us who do feel tortured some of the time, I also feel like it's comforting to see your process reflected in other creators?
(PS — It looks like your comment got double-posted somehow, so I'm going to delete the duplicate comment.)
I loved watching this doco, thank you for reminding me of it! I wasn't bothered by Miyazaki's 'selfishness'. Maybe we could call it determination, tenacity, one pointed focus. As a writer I certainly found his creative process to be very real, his grumpiness, his naps and idiosyncratic habits very relatable. I was very happy to see inside his working day and process. Seeing the drawings evolve on the walls of the office was wonderful.
On one hand, I don't think selfishness is an inherently negative quality--meeting one's own needs and wants is too often dubbed "selfish" and yet is a necessary element to a healthy, balanced life whether one is an artistic genius or not. However, insensitivity seems to be directly at odds with the sensibility which is imperative to producing great art. Thus, I don't think it is a question of whether one should excuse a great artist for their humanistic lacking but rather that those who are most caring, sensitive, and pure as people are also the best--not necessarily famous, but eternal--artists.
Good points. In fact, "selfishness" may not be the right word at all — maybe "single-mindedness" is a better choice? In any case, totally agree that choosing to focus on your own projects and meet your own needs is not inherently selfish.
I've met a lot of artists that seem like selfish, narcissistic, vain, sometimes even cruel jerks (history reveals plenty of them, too). I have often wondered -- the armchair psychologist within -- if these qualities aren't more about insecurity and fear, ways of compensating; or do these qualities develop because of what it takes to live an artist's life -- which is difficult and punishing and often seemingly impossible? I don't know. I have come to really admire artists with great humility, vulnerability; people who are radically honest and kind, too. These qualities are rare in human beings, period, but seem terribly difficult to develop alongside a solitary artist's life/style. (And, yes, I am painting with a broad brush here, so my apologies for maybe sounding super harsh).
Agree about admiring artists with great humility and vulnerability! As for why so many are selfish jerks, maybe it's endemic to professions where very, very few people succeed—but those who do are rewarded with outsize fame and money? Seems to have a warping effect on human psyches...
Yes, and I also think that solitary pursuits -- artists, academics, et al. -- lend themselves to becoming megalomaniacs because there is no sharing, no practice in the art of compromise, no answering to anyone. I worked at a college for 10 years, and trust that, like artists, something goes horribly awry, hahahahahahahaha, even when fame and money are not involved. But I agree with your comment.
It also made me think about Elizabeth Gilbert’s ted talk and how we think of “tortured creative geniuses” and how we relate to creativity. I don’t agree with it completely but it really made me view some things differently.
As much as I revere Miyazaki, I feel like defending such selfishness is kind of assuming that a person themself are the sole creator of the artistic work, without any inspiration or help from outside. When we engage in any creative endeavour, we are drawing inspiration and ideas from the world around us and also the works of people who were before us. Creativity does not exist in a vacuum. On the other hand, a little selfishness is required because we need to protect the time and energy we are reserving for our creative work because it is that time which is under most attack, directly or indirectly, from other people and also from us.
I think some element of selfishness is required bc for instance you have to guard your time and energy- but I don’t think cruelty or dismissing others falls under selfishness per say…
Maybe it's not actually selfish to choose to art-making over other uses of life energy — for many artists it might be better described as a stubborn devotion to their innate calling. But some degree of refusing the demands of others HAS TO BE a characteristic of any successful artist — by successful, I mean an artist who actually produces work, more or less steadily. Lacking that devotion, the world (the human part of it) would happily suck away your days, one demand after another, until there's no time or energy left for art-making.
I love Miyazaki’s work! This is the first time I read anything about his process, and to be honest it makes sense to me that he would be kind of excentric. Regarding the question about whether selfishness is an inherent part of the creative process, I think in some way it should be, in the sense that you have to believe in yourself and in the fact that the work you’re doing has worth. It’s just the only way you can go on writing, or at least for me it is, this blind, perhaps even irrational belief that someone out there is interested in my work just because I’m passionate about what I write. And I believe that shows in the writing as well, a confident and passionate writer draws more readers than a timid writer who doesn’t believe in what he’a writing about. I think the writer is the first person who should believe in their own work. If we don’t, who will? But that’s not to say that any kind of selfishness is acceptable. Reading how Miyazaki treats his son made me cringe. Being an “eccentric creative genius” doesn’t justify these kinds of things, and I think the selfishness I was talking about is definitely meant to coexist with compassion. Writing, whether fiction or nonfiction, is an original interpretation of the world through the writer’s eyes, which means you absolutely have to care about your subject in an honest way. I think selfishness + compassion is a potent combination for great writing.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Andrei. I appreciate your emphasis on compassion above — I think that's probably an essential component of all great art? (Though, of course, some artists seem to be lacking it in their personal lives.)
Whilst in his wizened age he might appear to be jaded and negative, I (as an artist myself ) identify those qualities as one who grew up wanting to be better than their surroundings.
He frequently cited the immaturity of the media around him and wanted to reach for a deeper interpretation of experience (which sounds entirely like his criticism of Goro). But it's the implicit willingness to go beyond a comfort zone and explore his consciousness is that makes him and his movies relatable.
So whilst I appreciate the insights that you don't need to be tortured to create, being tortured through the creative process is essential to novel concept, If you're not experiencing the other side, how are you able to make definite decisions as an artist; if it's familiar it's also redundant
I was reminded of Picasso having such an unrelenting work ethic and punishing routine. He is quoted as saying. 'Without great solitude no serious work is possible.' Then it seems, his ire and treatment of anyone who interrupted his schedule were legendary. Les Egling.
Reminds me of the various accounts I have read on Picasso. Aaargh. And we are also aware in the tech world about a%^hole developers who produce beautiful work, and are utterly painful to work with. Well, I think it's kinda their cross to bear, and partly, our own, too. We are in such thrall of that kinda God-given genius that we place such individuals on a pedestal... only eager to knock them off because who wants to keep their neck craned up all the time? It's a bit of an unhealthy dynamic, and sorry, Mason! I have absolutely gone off on a tangent.
Please don't apologize, I'm really glad you made that connection between our worshipful attitude toward "geniuses" and the toxic work culture of the tech industry (and so many other industries)!
Selfishness and egotism and self-care are all different. And they come from different needs and drives. Ayn Rand wrote a book called "The Virtues of Selfishness," and though the title is initially off-putting the point is well made. It's necessary to tend to your own creative energies and pursuits first.
Centering the self, balanced against other externally-focused time & work, is necessary to sustain life. This description, tho, sounds more like toxic masculinity to me. Punishing workers + punishing yourself may yield some positive short-term results, but I believe it to be an unloving, unsustainable practice that does more harm than good over time.
I’m so grateful for your summary of the doc Mason! I feel like he could benefit from the love and compassion of a 12step program. In my humble opinion, the creative process doesn’t have to be selfish or result in the abuse (his son!) of other creators. Ultimately, creativity is a selfless act. It’s a gift we offer to the Creation. I know lots of generous, kind and incredible creators who don’t abuse themselves or others to get their wonderful work done. I feel like this doc will continue to perpetuate the myth that the artists must be tortured to create great work. That’s kind of a bummer- or maybe the youth will see the folly in his example? I hope so! We all deserve to be joyful.
P.S. It was a little reminiscent of Jiro My Dream of Sushi- with the terribly sad father son dynamic. I’m not well versed in Japanese male culture.
Thanks for weighing in, Sarah. I really appreciate your emphasis on the *joyfulness* of creativity. (Definitely something I struggle with!) And, yeah, I agree that we shouldn't be perpetuating the tortured-artist myth . . . and yet for those of us who do feel tortured some of the time, I also feel like it's comforting to see your process reflected in other creators?
(PS — It looks like your comment got double-posted somehow, so I'm going to delete the duplicate comment.)
YES.
I loved watching this doco, thank you for reminding me of it! I wasn't bothered by Miyazaki's 'selfishness'. Maybe we could call it determination, tenacity, one pointed focus. As a writer I certainly found his creative process to be very real, his grumpiness, his naps and idiosyncratic habits very relatable. I was very happy to see inside his working day and process. Seeing the drawings evolve on the walls of the office was wonderful.
On one hand, I don't think selfishness is an inherently negative quality--meeting one's own needs and wants is too often dubbed "selfish" and yet is a necessary element to a healthy, balanced life whether one is an artistic genius or not. However, insensitivity seems to be directly at odds with the sensibility which is imperative to producing great art. Thus, I don't think it is a question of whether one should excuse a great artist for their humanistic lacking but rather that those who are most caring, sensitive, and pure as people are also the best--not necessarily famous, but eternal--artists.
Good points. In fact, "selfishness" may not be the right word at all — maybe "single-mindedness" is a better choice? In any case, totally agree that choosing to focus on your own projects and meet your own needs is not inherently selfish.
I've met a lot of artists that seem like selfish, narcissistic, vain, sometimes even cruel jerks (history reveals plenty of them, too). I have often wondered -- the armchair psychologist within -- if these qualities aren't more about insecurity and fear, ways of compensating; or do these qualities develop because of what it takes to live an artist's life -- which is difficult and punishing and often seemingly impossible? I don't know. I have come to really admire artists with great humility, vulnerability; people who are radically honest and kind, too. These qualities are rare in human beings, period, but seem terribly difficult to develop alongside a solitary artist's life/style. (And, yes, I am painting with a broad brush here, so my apologies for maybe sounding super harsh).
Agree about admiring artists with great humility and vulnerability! As for why so many are selfish jerks, maybe it's endemic to professions where very, very few people succeed—but those who do are rewarded with outsize fame and money? Seems to have a warping effect on human psyches...
Yes, and I also think that solitary pursuits -- artists, academics, et al. -- lend themselves to becoming megalomaniacs because there is no sharing, no practice in the art of compromise, no answering to anyone. I worked at a college for 10 years, and trust that, like artists, something goes horribly awry, hahahahahahahaha, even when fame and money are not involved. But I agree with your comment.
Yes, 100% agree
It also made me think about Elizabeth Gilbert’s ted talk and how we think of “tortured creative geniuses” and how we relate to creativity. I don’t agree with it completely but it really made me view some things differently.
Ooh, need to watch this.
As much as I revere Miyazaki, I feel like defending such selfishness is kind of assuming that a person themself are the sole creator of the artistic work, without any inspiration or help from outside. When we engage in any creative endeavour, we are drawing inspiration and ideas from the world around us and also the works of people who were before us. Creativity does not exist in a vacuum. On the other hand, a little selfishness is required because we need to protect the time and energy we are reserving for our creative work because it is that time which is under most attack, directly or indirectly, from other people and also from us.
Very good points
I think some element of selfishness is required bc for instance you have to guard your time and energy- but I don’t think cruelty or dismissing others falls under selfishness per say…
Yes, I agree!
Maybe it's not actually selfish to choose to art-making over other uses of life energy — for many artists it might be better described as a stubborn devotion to their innate calling. But some degree of refusing the demands of others HAS TO BE a characteristic of any successful artist — by successful, I mean an artist who actually produces work, more or less steadily. Lacking that devotion, the world (the human part of it) would happily suck away your days, one demand after another, until there's no time or energy left for art-making.
I love Miyazaki’s work! This is the first time I read anything about his process, and to be honest it makes sense to me that he would be kind of excentric. Regarding the question about whether selfishness is an inherent part of the creative process, I think in some way it should be, in the sense that you have to believe in yourself and in the fact that the work you’re doing has worth. It’s just the only way you can go on writing, or at least for me it is, this blind, perhaps even irrational belief that someone out there is interested in my work just because I’m passionate about what I write. And I believe that shows in the writing as well, a confident and passionate writer draws more readers than a timid writer who doesn’t believe in what he’a writing about. I think the writer is the first person who should believe in their own work. If we don’t, who will? But that’s not to say that any kind of selfishness is acceptable. Reading how Miyazaki treats his son made me cringe. Being an “eccentric creative genius” doesn’t justify these kinds of things, and I think the selfishness I was talking about is definitely meant to coexist with compassion. Writing, whether fiction or nonfiction, is an original interpretation of the world through the writer’s eyes, which means you absolutely have to care about your subject in an honest way. I think selfishness + compassion is a potent combination for great writing.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Andrei. I appreciate your emphasis on compassion above — I think that's probably an essential component of all great art? (Though, of course, some artists seem to be lacking it in their personal lives.)
Whilst in his wizened age he might appear to be jaded and negative, I (as an artist myself ) identify those qualities as one who grew up wanting to be better than their surroundings.
He frequently cited the immaturity of the media around him and wanted to reach for a deeper interpretation of experience (which sounds entirely like his criticism of Goro). But it's the implicit willingness to go beyond a comfort zone and explore his consciousness is that makes him and his movies relatable.
So whilst I appreciate the insights that you don't need to be tortured to create, being tortured through the creative process is essential to novel concept, If you're not experiencing the other side, how are you able to make definite decisions as an artist; if it's familiar it's also redundant
In other words, you DO need to be tortured to create. I thought so!
. . . *J*P :: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2020/06/13/books/sharing-a-house-with-the-never-ending-man-ghibli/
Ooh, need to get this book!
I was reminded of Picasso having such an unrelenting work ethic and punishing routine. He is quoted as saying. 'Without great solitude no serious work is possible.' Then it seems, his ire and treatment of anyone who interrupted his schedule were legendary. Les Egling.
Reminds me of this fascinating paper on the difference between giftedness and genius (https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/1996-jensen.pdf). Alexey Guzey highlights a bit about (https://twitter.com/alexeyguzey/status/980383219572006912) the genius's value system not aligning with conventional, socially acceptable norms.
Interesting! Printing this to read later. Thanks.
You may enjoy this if you haven't read: https://aeon.co/essays/what-can-we-learn-from-the-secret-habits-of-genius
Reminds me of the various accounts I have read on Picasso. Aaargh. And we are also aware in the tech world about a%^hole developers who produce beautiful work, and are utterly painful to work with. Well, I think it's kinda their cross to bear, and partly, our own, too. We are in such thrall of that kinda God-given genius that we place such individuals on a pedestal... only eager to knock them off because who wants to keep their neck craned up all the time? It's a bit of an unhealthy dynamic, and sorry, Mason! I have absolutely gone off on a tangent.
Please don't apologize, I'm really glad you made that connection between our worshipful attitude toward "geniuses" and the toxic work culture of the tech industry (and so many other industries)!
Selfishness and egotism and self-care are all different. And they come from different needs and drives. Ayn Rand wrote a book called "The Virtues of Selfishness," and though the title is initially off-putting the point is well made. It's necessary to tend to your own creative energies and pursuits first.
Centering the self, balanced against other externally-focused time & work, is necessary to sustain life. This description, tho, sounds more like toxic masculinity to me. Punishing workers + punishing yourself may yield some positive short-term results, but I believe it to be an unloving, unsustainable practice that does more harm than good over time.