{"id":9384,"date":"2019-02-09T08:00:17","date_gmt":"2019-02-09T12:00:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/colabstaging.co.uk\/msbackup\/?p=9384"},"modified":"2019-02-09T16:14:22","modified_gmt":"2019-02-09T20:14:22","slug":"stoicism-a-kinder-gentler-model-for-creativity-by-kathryn-koromilas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/colabstaging.co.uk\/msbackup\/stoicism-a-kinder-gentler-model-for-creativity-by-kathryn-koromilas\/","title":{"rendered":"Stoicism: A Kinder, Gentler Model for Creativity by Kathryn Koromilas"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

When I saw Piotr Stankiewicz\u2019s Does Happiness Write Blank Pages: On Stoicism and Artistic Creativity<\/em> appear on my social media feed, I had a dramatic reaction: \u201cNo! Piotr, no. It is un<\/em>happiness that writes blank\u2014very, very blank\u2014pages.\u201d I was, of course, talking about me (as a creative does\u2014me, me, me). And, I was, of course, talking about my own creative block, my trying to write the pages of the next great novel, but writing nothing at all, coming up blank. In his foreword to Stankiewicz\u2019s comprehensive, complex, and fascinating thesis, the late Lawrence C. Becker, states what we all know too well: \u201cSeeking to write the Great American novel, usually leads to despair, not happiness.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Me.\nIn a nutshell. Only that\u2014given my birthplace\u2014I was seeking to write the Great\nAustralian Novel. Not important.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\nis important, is that I, like anyone whose rational faculties are still\nfunctioning, and who wants to live a good, happy, and productive life, turned\nto Stoicism. Just like Stankiewicz\u2014who is a poet (Romantic, I bet) as well as a\nphilosopher\u2014I was utterly \u201ccaptivated\u201d by the promise of this \u201coptimization\nproject\u201d (110) called Stoicism. I was completely captivated \u201cby the grandiose\nambitions of the Stoic ethics which promise freedom from fear and doubt\u201d\n(xxii). And I desperately wanted to rid myself of the fear and doubt that had\nso clouded my creative pursuits. In banal terms, I had writers\u2019 block. In\nother, more real terms, I was depressed. In short, I wanted Stoicism to fix\nme\u2014bring me happiness\u2014so that I could start writing again. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\nwas I thinking? Didn\u2019t I know that happiness does not have a reputation for\nleading us towards artistic heights? And the Stoics? They are not known for\ntheir creative talents! But a blocked writer will do anything to fill those\nwhite pages. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaking\nof white pages, Stankiewicz adopts Henry de Montherlant\u2019s famous \u201chappiness\nwrites in white ink on white pages\u201d phrase \u201cas a tagline for the commonplace\nintuition that a content life cannot produce meaningful works of art.\u201d Where\ndoes this commonplace intuition come from? This is, of course, the Romantic model\nof creativity, which emerged in 18th century Europe and shifted the burden of\ncreative responsibility from the \u201cgods\u201d to the individual. The Romantics, to\nbring in an encyclopaedic description from the Britannica Online, were\npreoccupied with \u201cthe genius, the hero, and the exceptional figure\u201d and were\nfocused on \u201cpassions and inner struggles\u201d and a \u201cnew view of the artist as a\nsupremely individual creator\u201d who shuns \u201cformal rules and traditional\nprocedures\u2026\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

With\nthat sort of a worldview, no wonder misery has prevailed over happiness for the\nlast 200 years of our creative history. But the art, the art! Genius.\nDisruptive. Groundbreaking. New. Original. Unique. Singular. Montherlant\u2019s\n\u2018happy white writing\u2019 then suggests that happiness does none of the creative\nbreaking of new ground; it does nothing at all. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\ndon\u2019t know much about Montherlant\u2019s life but according to his New\nYork Times obituary<\/a> he killed himself in\n1972 after having \u201csometimes praised and always defended suicide as a noble\ngesture, or man\u2019s right, and a thing much better than \u2018facing the void of\ninactivity\u2019.\u201d That\u2019s the ultimate choice for the Romantic\u2014produce genius or\ndie. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nRomantics praised action over inaction, passion over calm, emotion over reason,\nchaos over order. Quite the opposite of the Stoics, weren\u2019t they! So, what has\nStankiewicz concluded about Stoics and creativity? To be clear, when\nStankiewicz talks \u201ccreativity,\u201d he is talking about the Romantic model (after\nall this is the most persistent, lingering, beguiling model we\u2019ve inherited).\nIt is the model of creativity that Steiner called \u201cthe highest capacity that\nhuman beings possess\u201d (xvii); the creativity that Elzenberg called \u201cthe\nhighest, most perfect embodiment of the sense of life;\u201d the creativity that\nPope called \u201cinvention,\u201d the \u201chighest capacity of man, a near-divine\nattribute.\u201d It is the type of creativity, with all due respect, that Marcus\nAurelius \u201clacked\u2026completely.\u201d Namely, \u201cartistic creativity.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is how Stankiewicz goes about his exploration into whether artistic creativity is compatible with Stoicism. He embarks on an \u201cintellectual inquiry\u201d and his methodology is a \u201cstep-by-step\u201d (21) approach in which he identifies several themes normally associated with creative motivation and output and then proceeds to argue whether these themes (motivations\/outputs) are consistent with Stoic philosophy and practice, that is, with a Stoic life. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nthemes, or artistic motivations, considered are, in order of appearance: fame\n(26), profit (30), preservation (42), expression (50), cognition (62),\nrevolution (70), axiology (84), autotherapy (89), and didacticism (97). More\nspecifically, \u201cfame\u201d is understood as the pursuit of artistic creativity to \u201cgain the acknowledgment and praise of fellow\nhuman beings,\u201d such as \u201cbeing famous,\u201d or being \u201cbestowed with prestigious\naccolades or even the \u201csilent admiration\u201d of the masses (26). \u201cProfit\u201d is\nunderstood as the pursuit of artistic creativity to gain a \u201cfinancial reward,\u201d\nwhich could be money, material goods, earthly profits, such as a physical\npaycheck for a written text or physical performance (30). \u201cPreservation\u201d is\nunderstood as the pursuit of artistic creativity to express or \u201ccapture some\nspecific fragment of the universe and preserve it (42),\u201d such as writing the\nGreat American Novel or being the \u201cVoice of a Generation\u201d (47). \u201cExpression\u201d is\nunderstood as the pursuit of artistic creativity to express the individual\nself, the unique and singular self of the artist (50), to narrate the artistic\nself or, even, to create the artist\u2019s self-identity through the creative act\n(51). \u201cCognition\u201d is understood as the pursuit of artistic creativity to gather\nknowledge of the world through the creative act (62). \u201cRevolution\u201d is\nunderstood as the pursuit of artistic creativity to transform the world, to\nchange it, say at the socio-political level (70) where art is produced to\nachieve an end, that is, where artistic creativity \u201cfocuses on bringing about a\nconcrete social or political transformation\u201d (85). \u201cAxiology\u201d is understood as\nthe pursuit of artistic creativity to \u201creshape the world\u201d by adding value to\nit. Value is added by producing works of art that are valuable (not just\nbeautiful) in themselves (85). \u201cAutotherapy\u201d is understood as the pursuit of\nartistic creativity \u201cas a remedy to the personal experience of [the]\nmeaninglessness of life (89) as in when Nietzsche says, in his The Birth of\nTragedy<\/em>, that at the point \u201cwhen the will is in the highest danger, art\napproaches, as a saving, healing magician\u201d (89).  Finally, \u201cdidacticism\u201d is understood as the\npursuit of artistic creativity as a \u201ctool which serves to transmit and\npropagate knowledge, ideas, and wisdom\u201d (97).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, no creative artist\u2019s motivations can be known in full, and most, surely, vacillate between one or more of these themes or even, at times, some themes appear most pronounced and urgent and, at other types, subdued, mixed, and hybrid. But, I certainly know what my motivations have been over the years and I\u2019ve entertained almost all of the above. All, that is, apart from the \u201cprofit,\u201d \u201cdidactic,\u201d and \u201cautotherapeutic\u201d themes\/motivations\u2014I have always (until quite recently) vehemently eschewed these motivations. Speaking as the Romantic idealist\u2014Art for money? No! Art for preaching? No! Art for self-obsessed, narcissistic, boring therapy<\/em>? No! <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interestingly,\nthough maybe not surprisingly, these \u201cordinary,\u201d \u201cmundane,\u201d \u201cnon-Romantic\u201d\n(107) creative motivations are the most consistently Stoic. Art for profit?\nWhy, yes. Stankiewicz argues that, although Stoics train themselves in\nabstinence as a way of preparing themselves \u201cfor possible privations\u201d they do\nnot actually preach an ascetic lifestyle\u2014that\u2019s the \u201cascetic misinterpretation\nof Stoicism\u201d (30). In fact, Stoics don\u2019t reject monetary or other externals at\nall. Rather, they make wise use of them (39). Everything, in the words of\nMarcus Aurelius, can be \u201cmaterial for virtue, both rational and political\u201d\n(39). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Art for didactic purposes? Yes. Stankiewicz (via Foucault and Hadot) argues that the Stoics, especially Marcus Aurelius, adopted a \u201chighly refined literary form\u201d to record his thoughts and reflections. The form was meant to formulate rules for living with utmost precision to \u201censure their psychological efficacy and persuasive force\u201d (101). This, confirms Stankiewicz, is the \u201cgist of the didactic theme\u201d (101). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the most provocative teachings in Stoicism concerns our relationship with other human beings; a relationship which is often difficult and frustrating. As Stoics we are reminded that we are all made to live with each other. To this end, Marcus Aurelius tells himself (and us) to either teach our fellow humans or endure them. Literary excellence, then, is a way of communicating the rules of life with the most \u201cstriking maxims,\u201d to quote Hadot, so that they can help us and our fellow humans when facing life\u2019s difficulties. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Art as therapy? Maybe. Stankiewicz (via Foucault\u2019s \u201cThe Care of the Self\u201d) explores (in much more complexity than I can here) a \u201cfundamental parallel\u201d between autotherapeutic texts and Stoic texts (90). This is the common goal of \u201ccuring the hurting self.\u201d In fact, the Stoic texts abound in medical metaphors: \u201cput a scalpel to the wound; open an abscess; amputate and evacuate the superfluities\u201d (90). That said, the Stoic remedy is a clear, consistent, philosophical path towards living the virtuous life but nowhere does the path include \u201cliving a creative life\u201d (95). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The creative, autotherapeutic remedy is less philosophically consistent. For example, the Romantic creative could well desire a cure for their misery and thus produce great art, but then find that in order to continue producing great art, they must choose to continue suffering in actuality or even feign suffering. In On Anger<\/em>, Seneca writes: \u201cOften the pretense of passion will do what the passion itself could not have done.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Which\nbrings me back to the relentless and unforgiving Romantic model of artistic\ncreativity. Most of the motivations for creativity I\u2019ve ever entertained have\nbeen Romantic motivations: I want to be a respected and admired novelist! I\nwant to win that novel writing award! I want to write the Great Australian\nNovel! I want to be the Voice of my Generation! I want to write something\nvastly important and meaningful and valuable! I want to write my unique story! <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A\nrecipe for misery, indeed. Here is what Stankiewicz via the Stoics has\nconcluded about these motivations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

First of all, my longing to be an admired and respected writer depends, obviously, on the minds, expectations, and reactions of others. If we know anything at all about Stoicism we all know about the dichotomy of control and how this simple maxim manages to clarify a whole lot of Romantic notions about the world and our central and unique place in it: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In our power are opinion, movement towards a thing, desire, aversion; and in a word whatever are our own acts. Not in our power are the body, property, reputation, offices, and in a word, whatever are not our own acts.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s Epictetus, and that\u2019s the first thing he tells us, via Arrian, in his Handbook<\/em>. Creating art, then, in order to win the good opinion of others is not consistent with Stoic philosophy and practice. Moreover, Seneca, quotes Stankiewicz, goes on to say that \u201cpraise is not a good\u201d (28) and, worse, provokes us with this: \u201cWhat can be more scandalous than a philosopher affecting popularity and applause.\u201d Well, what can be more scandalous than a mediocre Australian writer trying to win popularity and applause\u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

That said, I often find that Stoicism oversimplifies\nthings and that can be frustrating. Today, given our expanded reach\u2014in terms of\nsocial, intellectual, and geo-mobility, individual choice, attainment of\nknowledge and skills\u2014I feel that the dichotomy of control is less a dichotomy\nand more a continuum; but that might be my Romantic notions again. Take, for\nexample, literary awards, competitions, and prizes. For the most part, these\nset clear and specific guidelines for what is a prizeworthy piece of work.\nMoreover, there are genres which clearly provide a model for what is acceptable\nand what is not. Given this level of transparency, don\u2019t I have more control of\nthe production of a work that might meet these guidelines and, therefore, be\nworthy of popularity, applause, and\u2014why not\u2014a literary award? What, then, does\ndepend on me and what does not? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moving on. What of my desire for posthumous fame; to\nbe remembered after I\u2019m gone, to make my living and my artistic pursuits\nsomehow meaningful if they (and I via them) live on after my physical death.\nAgain, not Stoic at all. \u201cHe who has vehement desire for posthumous fame does\nnot consider that every one of those who remember him will himself also die\nvery soon\u201d (29). And to top all of that off we have Marcus Aurelius, in his\ninfinitely melancholy tone (remember for a Romantic, melancholy is cool!), sounding\nnot unlike Hamlet: \u201cWhere are they all now? Smoke and ash and a tale, or not\neven a tale. How many after being celebrated by fame have been given up to\noblivion; and how many who have celebrated the fame of others have long been\ndead?\u201d (43). It is thus inconsistent with Stoicism to write for posthumous\nfame. You just can\u2019t depend on anyone to live long enough to remember you or to\nkeep your books stocked on bookstore and library shelves. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next. What does Stankiewicz and the Stoics say to my desire to write that Great Novel and to be heard as the Voice of My Generation? What of my desire to express my own uniqueness and singularity and thus be saved from oblivion? Un-Stoic! They say. It certainly seems quite plausible for me (for us) to wish to preserve something unique about a given moment in the world\u2019s history\u2014our own individual stories, \u201cgrand histories, objects and events of every kind, deeds, nations, religions, churches, cities\u201d (42). Given the perishability (43) of beings and buildings and historical periods, it makes sense to want to keep a record of this. Marcus Aurelius, again, was obsessed by this: \u201cWhere are they all now?\u201d (43). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But is artistic creativity which is focused on the preservation of unique, individual stories consistent with Stoic philosophy? The argument is complex, but in brief, no, says Stankiewicz. I think it goes like this. According to the Stoics, the universe is founded on the concept of the eternal return (44): \u201cthe universe we live in is just one instance in an infinite series of universes that have been coming one after another for an eternity to come.\u201d So, although at the \u201clocal\u201d or individual level, beings perish, \u201cnothing ultimately disappears in the bigger picture\u201d and nothing is ultimately forgotten. There is nothing new in the world (45). Everything is always the same (46). So, to expect to surprise with one\u2019s unique little story and to deserve preservation or to be surprised by some unique work of art so much so that the work must be preserved because it is so surprising and unique and singular, is incoherent, \u201cridiculous\u201d (48). In the Stoic universe, writes Stankiewicz, \u201cthere is no need for an artist to preserve anything. Everything preserves itself\u201d (47). Ouch. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fine. Next. What of my desire to write something meaningful, and important, and valuable? Not Stoic! Says, Stankiewicz. First of all, the notion of art as an axiological pursuit (a kind of ethico-aesthetic pursuit), a pursuit that adds \u201caxia\u201d or \u201cvalue\u201d to the world is preposterous! Now, this one is really hard for me to fathom. After all, I\u2019m a Keats fangirl and have lived a lifetime chanting \u201cBeauty is truth, truth beauty, \u2014that is all \/ Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know\u201d and the purpose of Romantics such as Keats was to create such beauty and truth to add even more beauty and truth to the universe. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the Stoic view, however, \u201cthe universe is by default excellent. It is intrinsically and absolutely perfect\u201d (85) so no poet can add anything at all. You can\u2019t add perfection to absolute perfection, even if you are Keats.  According to Epictetus, the universe is a \u201cliving being, rational, animate and intelligent\u201d (85). If the world is perfect, writes Stankiewicz (again with much greater complexity and comprehensiveness than I can possibly relate here\u2014I strongly recommend to everyone interested in how Stoicism can be applied consistently to our modern-day living and our modern-day angsts to purchase or borrow and read this book), then no artistic endeavour can possibly or necessarily make the world axiologically greater. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One argument after the other and the Romantic in me is\ndeflated, defeated. Stankiewicz\u2019s verdict is unequivocal: Stoicism and the\nRomantic model of creativity contradict each other. These two modes of life\ncannot go together. These two \u201cgreat manifestations of the human spirit\u2026cannot\nbe embraced simultaneously.\u201d The hard truth is that a \u201cRomantic poet and a\nStoic cannot be rolled into one\u201d (108).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I must say (in fact, Stankiewicz says it for me) it is\nnot without a \u201cbit of sorrow\u201d that we must come to this conclusion. So, if I\naspire to Stoicism, I must give up on my Romantic creativity? This is quite a\ndevastating defeat. Can\u2019t we keep the Romantic divine and have Stoicism make us\nhappy? Doesn\u2019t Stoicism promise universality\u2014that one can achieve virtue and,\ntherefore, happiness under any circumstances? If the sage can be happy on the\nrack, if Sisyphus can be happy pushing up the same boulder for eternity, can\u2019t\nI be happy as a miserable Romantic creative?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have certainly seen the unhappy Romantic at work. I have met some of these human gods and watched them work, falling in love with them. Years later, as we talk more and more about mental health and creativity, I learn that the genius that I saw was also the paranoid schizophrenia of the one boy and the bipolar disorder of the other. On the Romantic view, the paranoia of the schizophrenic can write some genius dialogue. On the Romantic view the mania of the bipolar can produce some genius music. Both boys have since sought treatment to produce good, consistent work\u2014it\u2019s not all white lines on white pages\u2014but also rejected treatment to descend into misery again only to be saved again. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Theirs was not the Stoic cure\u2014Stoicism, Stankiewicz quotes from Becker, may not be able to bring happiness to all psychological conditions\u2014there are exceptions to Stoic universality. In fact, some agents\u2014creative agents with compulsive, obsessive, or addictive personalities\u2014may logically reject the promise of Stoicism. Stoicism is not for everyone. Stankiewicz concludes that the human spirit will never fit into the one \u201cnarrow logic of any particular expression.\u201d Thus, some of us will become Stoics, some of us may become Romantic artists. Some, like me, might spend a lifetime coveting the Romantic model, but ultimately coming to terms with the fact that she is much more suited to the Stoic way. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Stoic way is a kinder, more gentle way of doing creativity and of living creatively. That sounds odd, to be sure, for Stoics have been charged with being inhumane, insensitive, and cold-blooded. I\u2019ve said that myself. But you may have noticed that beyond the strict guidelines of conservative Stoic practice, there is something happening in the world of creative thinking and Stoicism might well have a role to play. Stankiewicz has certainly invited the Stoics to the discussion. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One contribution that comes to mind is Elizabeth Gilbert\u2019s discussion of creativity in her book, Big Magic<\/em>, which shifts away from the Romantic model of creativity in favour of an older, clearly classical model, with some very clear, though not consistent, Stoic notes. The subtitle for her book \u201cCreative Living Beyond Fear\u201d suggests that it could quite well be read as the pop companion to Stankiewicz\u2019s theoretical treatise. After all, Stankiewicz\u2019s personal commitment to this exploration, like Gilbert\u2019s (and like mine) stems from wanting to live creatively without the fear and doubt (and misery) we\u2019ve inherited from the Romantics. Stoicism can, if nothing else, treat this. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stankiewicz in no way suggests a superficial or dishonest appropriation of Stoicism, but certainly suggests that as modern Stoics we must be \u201cfar more flexible than [our] ancient counterpart[s].\u201d The Stoic creative \u201cmust be less of a fixed and immutable rock, which antiquity used to praise, and more of a malleable, self-aware, and self-conscious person which is capable of defining and re-defining herself.\u201d If the Romantic is to happily transform into a Stoic, she will keep her \u201ccapacity and right to narrate a new story about herself\u2026to change her identity if necessary\u2026to shape her own evolution\u201d (112). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I can live, and create, with that. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kathryn Koromilas<\/strong> is a writer who leads the <\/em>Stoic Writing Scene<\/em><\/a> and <\/em>The Stoic Writer<\/em><\/a>, and <\/em>participated in Stoic Week 2018<\/em><\/a>. You can read her stories and find out more about her work <\/em>at her website<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

When I saw Piotr Stankiewicz\u2019s Does Happiness Write Blank Pages: On Stoicism and Artistic Creativity appear on my social media feed, I had a dramatic reaction: \u201cNo! Piotr, no. It is unhappiness that writes blank\u2014very, very blank\u2014pages.\u201d I was, of course, talking about me (as a creative does\u2014me, me, me). And, I was, of course, … Continue reading “Stoicism: A Kinder, Gentler Model for Creativity by Kathryn Koromilas”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8636,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9384","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/colabstaging.co.uk\/msbackup\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9384","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/colabstaging.co.uk\/msbackup\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/colabstaging.co.uk\/msbackup\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/colabstaging.co.uk\/msbackup\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8636"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/colabstaging.co.uk\/msbackup\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9384"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/colabstaging.co.uk\/msbackup\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9384\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9456,"href":"https:\/\/colabstaging.co.uk\/msbackup\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9384\/revisions\/9456"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/colabstaging.co.uk\/msbackup\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9384"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/colabstaging.co.uk\/msbackup\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9384"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/colabstaging.co.uk\/msbackup\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9384"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}