Is this artist a genius?

[Undesired Walrus]

Split from here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=132959

For anyone who looks down on those who cannot read or write, I simply refer them to Willard Wigan, who surely must be one of the greatest geniuses alive today:

vYi458oI0-8

http://www.willard-wigan.com/

[calebprime]

For anyone who looks down on those who cannot read or write, I simply refer them to Willard Wigan, who surely must be one of the greatest geniuses alive today:

vYi458oI0-8

http://www.willard-wigan.com/

imo, that's a cool gimmick, and it took some cleverness and persistence to develop the skills to do that, but nothing about the sculptures he creates is interesting.

Homer choking Bart? Charlie Chaplain?

Not interesting subjects.

No evidence that I could see of anything gripping about the faces, for example. Vivid faces are one way sculptures or paintings of human figures can shine.

If you expanded the scale, would these sculptures be interesting?

I contend they wouldn't.

Genius is perhaps brain function, or it's influence through time, or it's knowledge of the field, or it's incredible facility, or it's fecundity, or the ability to visualize and create amazing designs, or...

Whatever genius is, this isn't it. Sure, 20 million dollars.

That's success, not genius.

[Undesired Walrus]

Homer choking Bart? Charlie Chaplain?

Not interesting subjects.

I find Chaplain fairly interesting, but if that isn't your cup of tea, how about the Six Wives of Henry VIII in the eye of a needle? The Thinker on a pinhead?

If you expanded the scale, would these sculptures be interesting?

I contend they wouldn't.

Isn't that a bit like saying: "If Da Vinci had had explosive diarrhea all over The Last Supper, would the painting still be interesting?"

The term genius is relative, but I do know it is universally attributed to people who have the ability to do something absolutely breathtaking that is deemed to be beyond ordinary Human capacity. If Wigan's work isn't breathtaking, I don't know what is. A doll the size of a blood cell which is painted with the eyelash of a fly?

Genius is perhaps brain function, or it's influence through time, or it's knowledge of the field, or it's incredible facility, or it's fecundity, or the ability to visualize and create amazing designs,

How does he not possess each of these things?

[quixotecoyote]

How does he not possess each of these things?


If he invented the tools, I would consider him a genius inventor.

If he perfected the technique, I would consider him a genius innovator.

If the skills required to create his art take a genius to master, I would consider him a genius craftsman.

I don't know and the website doesn't tell me, but I'm happy to assume he is.

As for how I read your statement, that he was a genius artist, the only unique thing about his art (that an admittedly uneducated non-artist like myself can see) is its size. Most of the works are completely derivative and uninspired. He has a few that look like they took some creativity, like the Titanic piece, but most of the others look like miniaturized versions of truck stop gift figurines.

I'm not saying it's not art. Anything can be art. But I'll stick my neck out and say it's art that lacks much to recommend it outside the single gimmick.

[calebprime]

I find Chaplain fairly interesting, but if that isn't your cup of tea, how about the Six Wives of Henry VIII in the eye of a needle? The Thinker on a pinhead?



Isn't that a bit like saying: "If Da Vinci had had explosive diarrhea all over The Last Supper, would the painting still be interesting?"

The term genius is relative, but I do know it is universally attributed to people who have the ability to do something absolutely breathtaking that is deemed to be beyond ordinary Human capacity. If Wigan's work isn't breathtaking, I don't know what is. A doll the size of a blood cell which is painted with the eyelash of a fly?



How does he not possess each of these things?


Well, let me try to be more specific.

First, you claimed, enthusiastically, that he was one of the great geniuses of our time. That is the proverbial extraordinary claim, at least requiring some evidence, some support.

You have to try to articulate what it is that seems so brilliant, although often this is hard to do.

Now, the evidence is the work itself, unless you're claiming that this guy has unusual abilities that we're not seeing when we look at his work.

For example, though his compositions were nothing much to listen to, a music student I knew had unusual facility with numbers, matrices, the ability to memorize. So I consider him a genius even though his work doesn't yet bear this out.

And, puerile though your explosive diarrhea counterexample was, it also wasn't a good analogy. I'm arguing that the ONLY thing distinctive about this man's work is the small size, and the difficulties he overcomes creating work on that scale.

The Thinker on a pinhead is a technical gimmick. If he had come up with the idea and image of the Thinker himself, then that would be a different matter. The idea isn't original, aside from the small scale.

There is something that excites you about doing something on this small scale, partly the difficulty. That's it, really.

But, you can make a case.

The case will be easy to make, if, on further examination, there's something interesting about the images, sculptures, themselves, apart from the small scale.

His stuff looks like very small kitsch to me. Not even as interesting as ships in a bottle.

I don't know many visual artists personally--only two, in fact--but I'd be far more ready to call both of them geniuses.

They both do a wider variety of things, their images are striking, their understanding is great, their work repays all kinds of attention, and, harder to point to, their stuff has a kind of philosophical or cultural depth--the way it plays off other images, other ideas floating around.

His stuff is simply using familiar images, without any twist other than the small scale.

[NobbyNobbs]

I'm not saying it's not art. Anything can be art. But I'll stick my neck out and say it's art that lacks much to recommend it outside the single gimmick.


[devil's advocate]

Then again, Jackson Pollack has been hailed as a genius in his field. Yet aside from his single gimmick, that of throwing paint at the canvas in a seemingly random fashion, I wouldn't say his art has much to recommend it at all either.

[/devil's advocate]

That said, although I don't know whether to apply the term "genius" to Wigan, I am sure as hell impressed with his ability. More so than I am with Pollack.

[quixotecoyote]

[devil's advocate]

Then again, Jackson Pollack has been hailed as a genius in his field. Yet aside from his single gimmick, that of throwing paint at the canvas in a seemingly random fashion, I wouldn't say his art has much to recommend it at all either.

[/devil's advocate]

That said, although I don't know whether to apply the term "genius" to Wigan, I am sure as hell impressed with his ability. More so than I am with Pollack.

Your devil's advocate isn't very effective when I agree with him completely. :D

Now if you want to argue that Pollack's real art is the recordings of him creating the paintings, I might find him more defensible. But I really don't want to argue Pollack, he has been discussed endlessly on this forum.

[Undesired Walrus]

Well, let me try to be more specific.

First, you claimed, enthusiastically, that he was one of the great geniuses of our time. That is the proverbial extraordinary claim, at least requiring some evidence, some support.

Ok, I was admitedly being slightly outrageous in that statement. I'm went to one of his first exhibitions as a child, so my childish wonder must be ingrained in my adult self. We're all human.


The Thinker on a pinhead is a technical gimmick. If he had come up with the idea and image of the Thinker himself, then that would be a different matter. The idea isn't original, aside from the small scale.


Yet doesn't much of Warhol's work abide by the same principles?

His stuff is simply using familiar images, without any twist other than the small scale.

But part of the wonder generated by his work is the fact that they are familiar images. Any original composition by Wigan would only exist in the microscopic world, not in ours. Before now, these figures only existed in 'our' world, in our size comparisons. Russell used to orbiting teapot analogy rather than the martian for a reason.

[plumjam]

You'll note that in the news report you never see Willard next to another human being. That's not surprising, because in fact he is a 300ft giant who was brought back to England from The Democratic Republic of Congo. On an oil tanker.
His sculptures, contrary to that piece of 'journalism' are therefore of a handy size to fit on a normal human being's shelf or mantelpiece. Indeed, my Nan has one of his sculptures of a milkmaid on her kitchen window sill.

[Ashles]

I reckon he just spends his time making really big needles and matches. :)

Seriously, I would consider him more a very skilled artisan with great patience than actually an artist as such.

It seems the intention is not to convey specific emotional impact from whatever he is actually creating, it is all about the skill and deicationof the craft in making it.

A ship in a bottle doesn't impress because it's impressive to see a small ship, it impresses because of the expertise involved in building it.
News stories about men building the houses of Parliament out of matches are not newsworthy because we want to see a small version of Parliament, but because somebody dedicated a lot of time to a specific goal.

[Piscivore]

I reckon he just spends his time making really big needles and matches. :)

Seriously, I would consider him more a very skilled artisan with great patience than actually an artist as such.

It seems the intention is not to convey specific emotional impact from whatever he is actually creating, it is all about the skill and deicationof the craft in making it.

A ship in a bottle doesn't impress because it's impressive to see a small ship, it impresses because of the expertise involved in building it.
News stories about men building the houses of Parliament out of matches are not newsworthy because we want to see a small version of Parliament, but because somebody dedicated a lot of time to a specific goal.
Isn't the reaction to that expertise, that dedication, an emotional impact?

I saw some of this guy's work in the Ripley's museum in San Diego- I was pretty impressed.

[Ashles]

Isn't the reaction to that expertise, that dedication, an emotional impact?

I saw some of this guy's work in the Ripley's museum in San Diego- I was pretty impressed.

I agree it is impressive.

But the distinction I'm making is that what he has created is not in itself artistically interesting (in my opinion).
The process of making it is impressive, but if you are going to define art as anything that you find impressive, no matter how functional it is (such as the skill of a watchmaker fixing a watch, or a surgeon operating on a heart, or a chimney sweep sweeping a chimney) then I don't think art is a very useful term at that point.

[Ragnarok]

Before I read this thread I was in the "childish wonder" camp(possibly due a little to not being very skilled with my hands), but now I'm a lot less sure. :confused:

I'm not sure thanks are in order for making my world a little less wonderful though. Let me have a think about it.

[quixotecoyote]

Before I read this thread I was in the "childish wonder" camp(possibly due a little to not being very skilled with my hands), but now I'm a lot less sure. :confused:

I'm not sure thanks are in order for making my world a little less wonderful though. Let me have a think about it.

Naw, it's still really cool, whatever it is. There's just been an art debate simmering on the forum this year.

[Ragnarok]

Naw, it's still really cool, whatever it is. There's just been an art debate simmering on the forum this year.

But the point made above about his pieces being fairly mediocre if they were mantle-piece sized, is actually valid.

Nah, balls to it. I'm still impressed...by his concentration levels and zen-like approach to it, if nothing else.

[Piscivore]

I agree it is impressive.

But the distinction I'm making is that what he has created is not in itself artistically interesting (in my opinion).
Which is exactly why "Art" is a subjective thing. :)

The process of making it is impressive, but if you are going to define art as anything that you find impressive, no matter how functional it is
To what "function" are you referring?

(such as the skill of a watchmaker fixing a watch, or a surgeon operating on a heart, or a chimney sweep sweeping a chimney) then I don't think art is a very useful term at that point.
Well, a surgeon or a chimbley sweep isn't really creating anything. That leaves them out of the definition for me. While I'm very impressed with the job my son's heart surgeon did, or his pediatrician in detecting the flaw in the first place, they're still essentially technicians.

The watch repairer is a bit of a borderline case- A watchmaker who builds a watch could certainly be an artist- especially if done entirely by hand. A major restoration job on an antique watch, possibly so- few people seem to hesitate to grant the title to automobile restorers, for example. Popping a new battery into a quartz Timex, or changing the brake pads on a daily driver- not so much.

[Piscivore]

But the point made above about his pieces being fairly mediocre if they were mantle-piece sized, is actually valid.

I don't think so. That's a little like saying that Leonardo's inventions wouldn't be all that impressive if he were trying to patent them today, or that the battle of Thermopolae wouldn't be that impressive if the Spartans had automatic firearms.

[Ragnarok]

I don't think so. That's a little like saying that Leonardo's inventions wouldn't be all that impressive if he were trying to patent them today, or that the battle of Thermopolae wouldn't be that impressive if the Spartans had automatic firearms.

No, it's more like saying if I made exact replicas of his works, only they were 12" high, they would not impress many people.

[blobru]

... I'm arguing that the ONLY thing distinctive about this man's work is the small size, and the difficulties he overcomes creating work on that scale.

The Thinker on a pinhead is a technical gimmick. If he had come up with the idea and image of the Thinker himself, then that would be a different matter. The idea isn't original, aside from the small scale.

There is something that excites you about doing something on this small scale, partly the difficulty. That's it, really.

But, you can make a case.

The case will be easy to make, if, on further examination, there's something interesting about the images, sculptures, themselves, apart from the small scale.

His stuff looks like very small kitsch to me. Not even as interesting as ships in a bottle.

I don't know many visual artists personally--only two, in fact--but I'd be far more ready to call both of them geniuses.

They both do a wider variety of things, their images are striking, their understanding is great, their work repays all kinds of attention, and, harder to point to, their stuff has a kind of philosophical or cultural depth--the way it plays off other images, other ideas floating around.

His stuff is simply using familiar images, without any twist other than the small scale.


Hey! :mad: Slag Wee Willard Wigan if you must, you can't deny this guy is the greatest musical genius since Pythagoras:

Huh? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRFlkI7GJ24)TRFlkI7GJ24Or? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwxvOKuLUQ0)kwxvOKuLUQ0Surely! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXZJN6QtuD0)dXZJN6QtuD0Sheer breathless, instrumentless virtuosity. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr1fMkvb6J8)Zr1fMkvb6J8

[Ragnarok]

Crikey!

[quixotecoyote]

I completely agree, that was amazing. Does that guy have an act? I'd go and see him. The large body (or at least the framing) and permanent frown just sell it.

[Ragnarok]

For my money, you can't beat this fella! Stephen Wiltshire (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dAfaM_CBvP8).

[Piscivore]

No, it's more like saying if I made exact replicas of his works, only they were 12" high, they would not impress many people.

Right- If it was something else. It isn't. If it was a rat pudding, it probably wouldn't impress either. It's not a lot of things- why should it matter what it would be if it were bigger?If someone can play the flute with his nose, what difference should it make if he plays the theme song to "Bewitched" vs. something by Bach? Just plain snobbery?

[blobru]

I completely agree, that was amazing. Does that guy have an act? I'd go and see him. The large body (or at least the framing) and permanent frown just sell it.

Not to mention the sofa skin, which would put even the best (and/or worst) of Pollock to shame.

For my money, you can't beat this fella! Stephen Wiltshire (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dAfaM_CBvP8).

Wow -- what a memory.

Wouldn't want to commit a crime and have him show up as an eye witness.

[bruto]

I suppose there's always some overlap between art and craft, and there will always be disagreement, but while I am hugely impressed by those miniatures, and consider Wigan a fantastic artisan worthy of admiration, whose work is valuable and inspiring, it's about the execution, not the content. And to me that differentiates it from fine art, even if its value is as high.

[quixotecoyote]

Right- If it was something else. It isn't. If it was a rat pudding, it probably wouldn't impress either. It's not a lot of things- why should it matter what it would be if it were bigger?If someone can play the flute with his nose, what difference should it make if he plays the theme song to "Bewitched" vs. something by Bach? Just plain snobbery?

Because if the only unique thing about the flutist is that he plays with his nose, people look at the gimmick, appreciate the uniqueness and move on. If he was a talented musician to boot, then people could appreciate the music as well as the gimmick used to produce it.

[Piscivore]

Because if the only unique thing about the flutist is that he plays with his nose, people look at the gimmick, appreciate the uniqueness and move on.
So then, this mythical "uniqueness" is the most important value in art to you?

If he was a talented musician to boot,
Playing a flute with one's nose not "talented" enough for you? One wonders who exactly meets this exceptionally high standard, then.

then people could appreciate the music as well as the gimmick used to produce it.
ETA: You didn't answer- do you think it makes a difference if our postulated nasal flautist plays the theme song to "Bewitched" vs. something by Bach?

And you cannot appreciate these works because "if they were bigger", they'd be easier to do? There would be more "expression" in the faces? Is that it?

You do realise that every medium has its limitations, right? The dude is painting with a fly's eyelash, I rather think he's getting the best resolution possible.

Might as well complain that Michalangelo's David isn't that great because it's not in colour- If it had been done in colour, it would look more like a person.

Let's clear this up. Is this "Art"?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2850496edafe7f429.jpg
Why or why not?

How about this?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2850496edad9b5eed.jpg
Why or why not?

So why isn't this?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2850496eda93a01dd.jpg



Is this "Art"?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2850496eda930ce8d.jpg
Why or why not?

If that is, why isn't this?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2850496eda93c72d4.jpg

[quixotecoyote]

So then, this mythical "uniqueness" is the most important value in art to you?


Playing a flute with one's nose not "talented" enough for you? One wonders who exactly meets this exceptionally high standard, then.


ETA: You didn't answer- do you think it makes a difference if our postulated nasal flautist plays the theme song to "Bewitched" vs. something by Bach?

And you cannot appreciate these works because "if they were bigger", they'd be easier to do? There would be more "expression" in the faces? Is that it?

You do realise that every medium has its limitations, right? The dude is painting with a fly's eyelash, I rather think he's getting the best resolution possible.

Might as well complain that Michalangelo's David isn't that great because it's not in colour- If it had been done in colour, it would look more like a person.

Let's clear this up. Is this "Art"?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2850496edafe7f429.jpg
Why or why not?

How about this?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2850496edad9b5eed.jpg
Why or why not?

So why isn't this?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2850496eda93a01dd.jpg



Is this "Art"?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2850496eda930ce8d.jpg
Why or why not?

If that is, why isn't this?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2850496eda93c72d4.jpg


I think you've got your debaters mixed up and I want to clear that potential confusion before I engage with your further.



I'm not saying it's not art. Anything can be art. But I'll stick my neck out and say it's art that lacks much to recommend it outside the single gimmick.

I'm not saying it's not art. I'm saying the prime value in the work is its size, a claim I doubt Wigan could disagree too strenuously with, given that's the shtick he's running with.

And as you said, there's limitations on the medium with means there's only so much he can do with it.

And as I said, it's really a really cool thing to do, but I don't consider it to have much artistic value.

He's got a really unique canvas, but the painting is just an excuse to look at the canvas.

[Ashles]

To what "function" are you referring?
The functional mechanics of actually creating the object

Well, a surgeon or a chimbley sweep isn't really creating anything. That leaves them out of the definition for me. While I'm very impressed with the job my son's heart surgeon did, or his pediatrician in detecting the flaw in the first place, they're still essentially technicians.
That's exactly my point. As a technician I think the guy is extremely impressive.
He and the examples I gave share roles whereby they are using technical skill to achieve somthing. In his case it is a piece of art, in their cases it is a job.
And his skill to create complex things that are very small is very impressive.

I don't think what he has created is artistically very interesting in itself.

As a piece, each of them is art, just, as mentioned above, not very interesting art.

However the means by which he makes them is impressive.

I am equally impressed by all the pieces because the quality they demonstrate tat impresses me is not intrinsic in what each item actually looks like or represents, as much as how they have been created.

In your pictures all the examples taken individually are art. Just art of differing qualities.

[Ragnarok]

I don't think anyone is doubting he is an artist, but his genius seems purely in the execution of his works. If we accept that only geniuses can do certain things, then I'm sure Willard fits the bill by that standard.

[Piscivore]

I think you've got your debaters mixed up and I want to clear that potential confusion before I engage with your further.
Fair enough- wouldn't be the first time. My apologies.

I'm not saying it's not art. I'm saying the prime value in the work is its size, a claim I doubt Wigan could disagree too strenuously with, given that's the shtick he's running with.
What's wrong with that?

And as you said, there's limitations on the medium with means there's only so much he can do with it.

And as I said, it's really a really cool thing to do, but I don't consider it to have much artistic value.
I guess, in view of my confusion, I'll ask you to tell me again- why not?

He's got a really unique canvas, but the painting is just an excuse to look at the canvas.
Really- does the same hold true for the "real" Thinker? Is that just an excuse to look at some interestingly shaped bronze? Or Leonardo's anatomical sketches just an excuse to look at some technical drawing?

[quixotecoyote]

Fair enough- wouldn't be the first time. My apologies.

No worries. :)

What's wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing, I listed 3 ways he could be considered a genius. It's just art wasn't one of them.

I guess, in view of my confusion, I'll ask you to tell me again- why not?Because outside of their tiny size, there is nothing to recommend them. As a point of comparison, IBM once made a 3.3 by 8.8 micron depiction of its logo (http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/pr.nsf/pages/news.20060501_afm.html/$FILE/AFM%20sorter-IBM%20logo.jpg). Also tiny, also possible to consider it art. In both cases the technical method used to produce the piece was really amazing. However, in both pieces the output seems to lack any message (in fact I'll give IBM points for having at least a purpose) and also seems to lack any attempt at recognizable artistic techniques. To me, Wigan's works seem to be really teeny tiny refugees from the truck stop gift shop. Now if you think kitschy gift shop figurines are quality art, this this is simply a matter of a difference in taste as opposed to ... well, maybe it is anyway.

Really- does the same hold true for the "real" Thinker? Is that just an excuse to look at some interestingly shaped bronze? Or Leonardo's anatomical sketches just an excuse to look at some technical drawing?I think there is more to them than that. That's the distinction I'm making. If Rodin was going to exhibit to a culture that had never seen sculpted bronze before, the Thinker would have been a marvel in new sculptural technique, but it would also have been a solid piece of art apart from that.

I get that these mini-sculptures are marvels and new techniques, but I'm not seeing where they are solid pieces of art apart from that. Not that they aren't art, but they aren't particularly special, moving, communicative, technically intriguing in terms of the painting or sculpture (apart from the size), or culturally meaningful.

[Piscivore]

No worries. :)
Absolutely nothing, I listed 3 ways he could be considered a genius. It's just art wasn't one of them.

Because outside of their tiny size, there is nothing to recommend them. As a point of comparison, IBM once made a 3.3 by 8.8 micron depiction of its logo (http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/pr.nsf/pages/news.20060501_afm.html/$FILE/AFM%20sorter-IBM%20logo.jpg). Also tiny, also possible to consider it art. In both cases the technical method used to produce the piece was really amazing. However, in both pieces the output seems to lack any message (in fact I'll give IBM points for having at least a purpose) and also seems to lack any attempt at recognizable artistic techniques. To me, Wigan's works seem to be really teeny tiny refugees from the truck stop gift shop. Now if you think kitschy gift shop figurines are quality art, this this is simply a matter of a difference in taste as opposed to ... well, maybe it is anyway.

I think there is more to them than that. That's the distinction I'm making. If Rodin was going to exhibit to a culture that had never seen sculpted bronze before, the Thinker would have been a marvel in new sculptural technique, but it would also have been a solid piece of art apart from that.

I get that these mini-sculptures are marvels and new techniques, but I'm not seeing where they are solid pieces of art apart from that. Not that they aren't art, but they aren't particularly special, moving, communicative, technically intriguing in terms of the painting or sculpture (apart from the size), or culturally meaningful.

Great, thanks. I just wanted an idea about where your criteria were at.

[calebprime]

Hey! :mad: Slag Wee Willard Wigan if you must, you can't deny this guy is the greatest musical genius since Pythagoras:



but can he play 4'33''?

Claire de Lune?


No worries. :)
Absolutely nothing, I listed 3 ways he could be considered a genius. It's just art wasn't one of them.

Because outside of their tiny size, there is nothing to recommend them. As a point of comparison, IBM once made a 3.3 by 8.8 micron depiction of its logo (http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/pr.nsf/pages/news.20060501_afm.html/$FILE/AFM%20sorter-IBM%20logo.jpg). Also tiny, also possible to consider it art. In both cases the technical method used to produce the piece was really amazing. However, in both pieces the output seems to lack any message (in fact I'll give IBM points for having at least a purpose) and also seems to lack any attempt at recognizable artistic techniques. To me, Wigan's works seem to be really teeny tiny refugees from the truck stop gift shop. Now if you think kitschy gift shop figurines are quality art, this this is simply a matter of a difference in taste as opposed to ... well, maybe it is anyway.

I think there is more to them than that. That's the distinction I'm making. If Rodin was going to exhibit to a culture that had never seen sculpted bronze before, the Thinker would have been a marvel in new sculptural technique, but it would also have been a solid piece of art apart from that.

I get that these mini-sculptures are marvels and new techniques, but I'm not seeing where they are solid pieces of art apart from that. Not that they aren't art, but they aren't particularly special, moving, communicative, technically intriguing in terms of the painting or sculpture (apart from the size), or culturally meaningful.

I was going to bring up the IBM example, so thanks for that.


There's another angle, that I hesitate to bring up, but it's always there.

How people (including me) are somewhat fascinated with disabled, disturbed, childish, or freakish artists, or "noble savages"--those who seem to embody the primitive impulse.

The Shaggs is an example.

This is the combination of artifice and innocence (Nietzsche via Joni Mitchell) that appeals to the exhausted ones: us.

It's partly because we don't envy them. We can indulge in that weird mixed emotion called pity. They don't threaten us with their superiority.

And then, there's the "inspirational" message of people overcoming disability.

David Helfgott, various autistic savants, even Evelyn Glennie, are musical examples.

Of these, Glennie is at least a very good musician, and oddly, she's regained some of her hearing, so she's apparently not entirely deaf, according to one source I can't find now....:boggled:

What bothers me about Glennie is that she wouldn't be nearly as famous if she weren't hard of hearing.

I wish people were interested in music, not human-interest stories with a little circus in them.

Pity should be a guilty pleasure. (sez the faux Nietzschean).