• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

45 Self-Portraits Done on Different Drugs

Interesting.

I think that says more about him as a person rather than the effect that 'drugs' have on people.

Most people aren't affected noticeably by 1/2 of what he 'took'
 
He should probably be in jail :shrug:

I can't admire this.
 
marginally talented artist pulls stunt to call attention to his mediocre art

the concept is more important than the creation

phooey
 
Yes - I do like some of his works.

He's not the only artist to ever cling to illicit substances in order to produce their work! How boring would music alone be if they always abstained? So boring!
 
RadicalModerate said:
Artist Bryan Lewis Saunders did 45 different drugs and made a self portrait on each drug to reflect the nature of each substance. Interesting to see.

Self-portraits done to a different drug every day
Click to expand...

Did you happen to notice what site that was on? TheChive.com Have you ever heard of TheOnion.com? I don't know if they're related, but they are similar in concept. My sense is that TheChive is a knockoff of TheOnion.

Given the source, I very much doubt if this presentation is what it is claimed to be.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Did you happen to notice what site that was on? TheChive.com Have you ever heard of TheOnion.com? I don't know if they're related, but they are similar in concept. My sense is that TheChive is a knockoff of TheOnion.

Given the source, I very much doubt if this presentation is what it is claimed to be.
Click to expand...

I've actually heard of BLS before this article; he's done some weird audio/visual stuff, he does an art form called "stand-up tragedy", which is the polar opposite of stand-up comedy and some other work in various mediums. Given the artist's profile, I am quite sure it's very real. ;)

Yes, of course I know (and love) The Onion. It originated in CO! And yes, **** The Chive. They are blatant copycats of several different sites. I sometimes see people with "Keep Calm and Chive On" shirts around town.

I run them over with my car.
 
Last edited:
I'm no chemist and despise "art," but this seems dumb. This is not legal. It's not safe. It's completely irresponsible. How bad of an artist do you have to be to say "hey, maybe this would look better if I was stoned off my ***?"
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
I'm no chemist and despise "art," but this seems dumb. This is not legal. It's not safe. It's completely irresponsible. How bad of an artist do you have to be to say "hey, maybe this would look better if I was stoned off my ***?"
Click to expand...

If I may quote Bill Hicks here...

You see, I think drugs have done some good things for us. I really do. And if you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favor. Go home tonight. Take all your albums, all your tapes and all your CDs and burn them. 'Cause you know what, the musicians that made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years were rrrrrrrrr-eal ****ing high on drugs. The Beatles were so ****ing high they let Ringo sing a few tunes.
Click to expand...

If you don't think drugs make good art, either you don't do enough drugs or don't experience enough good art.
 
RadicalModerate said:
If I may quote Bill Hicks here...
If you don't think drugs make good art, either you don't do enough drugs or don't experience enough good art.
Click to expand...

... or I am just mature and know better.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
I'm no chemist and despise "art," but this seems dumb. This is not legal. It's not safe. It's completely irresponsible. How bad of an artist do you have to be to say "hey, maybe this would look better if I was stoned off my ***?"
Click to expand...

So what if it's not safe? No decent artist gives a **** what's safe. They care about art. And if you have any appreciation for any form of art, if any literature or music or painting has ever affected you in any way, then you don't care about safety any more than they do.

There a lot of different way to come about great art, and not a single one of them is safe. You don't come at the human experience honestly by being safe. You don't overcome the white noise inherent to re-translation by being safe. You live with your dial set to 11, and you develop a thick hide.

The best things I've ever written were the product of the most extreme danger I've ever been in. Crisis and pain and unrequited love and intense empathy and a belly-ripping sense of injustice - none of which are in any way safe - are how you get there. Writer's block and all its artistic cousins are a product of too much safety and having nothing pushing at your back. "I can't write because I'm not mad enough," said a writer I admire.

And irresponsible? How? In what way is it irresponsible to simply take a drug? It's a tool he is using to convey an idea. What is irresponsible about it? And even if it were, what does that matter? What does that have to do with the purpose of the project? How is being "responsible" a central tenant of artistic ideas?

If that is what you got out of this, you're missing the point completely. The point is not to make his work "better." The point is to see the character of the drug through the lens of his personality, and how it affects it. Given his social issue bent, and the fact that most of these drugs were legal prescription drugs, I think it makes a strong statement, whatever you think of the quality of the art itself.

I think it's interesting his darkest works are on anti-psychotics. His most vibrant and expressive ones are on uppers. We feed these things to children who have never even seen a proper psychiatrist.

If you all you have to say is, "That guy took drugs! Drugs bad!" you're missing the point.
 
No LSD portrait?

meh
 
Aunt Spiker said:
He's not the only artist to ever cling to illicit substances in order to produce their work! How boring would music alone be if they always abstained? So boring!
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right We'd be left with crap such as that composed by Beethoven and Mozart and Wagner. Or more modern crap such as the works of Stephen Sondheim or Andrew Lloyd Weber.

RadicalModerate said:
If you don't think drugs make good art, either you don't do enough drugs or don't experience enough good art.
Click to expand...

Such as the works of Da Vinci or Rembrandt or Renoir.


I doubt if you can point to any work of art, by any modern druggie, that is worthy of even being mentioned in the same sentence as any of the great classics.

Anyone who thinks that drug abuse contributes to great music, or great art, has no clue what good music or good art really is.


Renoir, sober:
500px-Renoir23.webp

Saunders, on marijuana:
self-portraits-different-drug-every-day-26.webp

Need I say more?
 
^^^

there is a fine line here you know.... Fitzgerald and Hemingway and many others were not totally sober when they wrote their masterpieces.... I am not saying anything .... only that in art and creation we've got to have an open mind ....that's all. :)
 
To be honest, Bob? The Renoir bores me. He has other works I enjoy, but like all artists, he had to eat. Two Girls was one piece he made for the purpose of eating, not love. I find it interesting that you chose one of his most staid and soulless commissions to represent him. That isn't art, to me. It's technically appeasing enough, but it has absolutely no depth to it. You chose the most shallow Renoir as a representative of good art when you had so many better works of his to choose from. Even the girls seem bored. The curtain is more interesting than they are.

The Saunders you chose is the "worst" you could find. You glanced right over the more complex works like the Meth and Morphine portraits. You failed to make the obviously, intentionally bluntly displayed connections between many of these drugs, and our Prozac Nation.

Also, do you like Charles Dickens? Lewis Carroll? Beethoven? Van Gogh? All drug/alcohol users or abusers. Them and hundreds more, dating back to antiquity.

That is not to say drugs are required to create art. But intense experience certainly is, however one might come upon it. Drugs can be a means to an end.
 
RadicalModerate said:
If I may quote Bill Hicks here...



If you don't think drugs make good art, either you don't do enough drugs or don't experience enough good art.
Click to expand...

Screw Bill Hicks, another over-rated person who thought (wrongly) that there was a necessary connection between drugs and enhanced creativity. This discounts the thousands of musicians and artists that are and were stone cold sober when they created and still made fantastic compositions.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Yes, you're right We'd be left with crap such as that composed by Beethoven and Mozart and Wagner. Or more modern crap such as the works of Stephen Sondheim or Andrew Lloyd Weber.


Such as the works of Da Vinci or Rembrandt or Renoir.


I doubt if you can point to any work of art, by any modern druggie, that is worthy of even being mentioned in the same sentence as any of the great classics.

Anyone who thinks that drug abuse contributes to great music, or great art, has no clue what good music or good art really is.


Renoir, sober:
View attachment 67132456

Saunders, on marijuana:
View attachment 67132454

Need I say more?
Click to expand...

You might want to.

Like S&M, I find much Impressionist art boring. That's me. You find drug induced art boring (assuming you realize it's drug induced ;)).

It's a matter of taste, Bob.
 
ChuckBerry said:
Screw Bill Hicks, another over-rated person who thought (wrongly) that there was a necessary connection between drugs and enhanced creativity. This discounts the thousands of musicians and artists that are and were stone cold sober when they created and still made fantastic compositions.
Click to expand...

What?

Admitting the Beatles and the Rolling Stones and Janis Joplin made good music when they were whacked out on LSD and heroin is somehow insulting to Frank Zappa and other drug-free musicians I can't think of right now?

By the way, Bill Hicks stopped drinking and doing drugs before making it big and becoming one of the best comedians of all time.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Yes, you're right We'd be left with crap such as that composed by Beethoven and Mozart and Wagner. Or more modern crap such as the works of Stephen Sondheim or Andrew Lloyd Weber.
Click to expand...

You're assuming those guys were all sober. That's a big assumption.
 
Cool idea. I kind of wonder if he actually took all of the drugs but I like the concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom