Peter T.

Sorry about the love, suggestion, I think I knew what you were saying but the example you gave did not see the logic in it ("Captain"). As for the person you described as very creative; it was not their talent, they were not currently creating and they were very ordinary? So it must have been love? Please take no offence, personally or on behalf of your friend, for none was intended.

Do you not think what you were talking about there could better be described (if not love), as charisma, personal magnetism or whatever? The French have an expression for it, I think. There are indeed special people in the world. I know, for I was lucky enough to find and marry one of them, all of 25 years ago.

If however all those personal qualities you and others detect are communicated through your friends work and the audience subsequently shares the feelings that you do now, then it may indeed be something else. It would definitely be successfully creative but still subject to individual taste. I do take your point about the unsettling nature of your friends gifts but you do not specify if this is transmitted in her work?

As I have said, I believe that creations are far more important than the creators. For however exceptional their talents are in their chosen fields, they are still flawed human beings just like the rest of us and would have many areas of their lives that they were less than capable in. They may point us to the sun, but they are not the sun.

Society seems to have generally accepted that great works can only produced by tortured souls in garrets, by those who would beat their wives, neglect their children and cut off pieces of their own bodies. Van Gogh is certainly better known for his act of self-mutilation than for the body of his work. This romantic view is immediately summoned up when you see the words creative genius. The two words going so well together that they form a cliché. There is a view (that does have some worth), that these clichés represent some universal truth but they also reflect lazy thinking and an unwillingness to upset or re-examine the accepted view.

It is also interesting to consider how those, who some would describe as geniuses, view themselves? How would they measure themselves against their own heroes, influences and inspirations? On the TV here today, there was a quote from Picasso, after he had visited the site, in France of the famous Stone-Age cave paintings, which were painted in 15000 BC. He said, "we have invented nothing".

I think it was you Peter, in another thread that made the point that only some of Shakespeare' s works were responsible for him being considered, to be a genius. At the end of the day, whether the creations are considered wonderful or not is just a matter of personal taste. I am not too sure how many of these people despite the acclaim given to their work, would have been thought of as charismatic, in the manner of your friend, by those that knew them well?

The important thing is that everyones creations are encouraged and allowed to see the light of day, to enable others to exercise their tastes, not hidden away because the creator may not be considered to be a creative person and that the merits of work are judged rather than the merits or reputation of its creator.

I am also reminded of all the people I have come across, personally and on The Mudcat, who write poetry that they never intend or require others to see. To them, creativity is certainly its own reward.