Quote:
Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
There's nothing contrarian about suggesting that heavy use of opiates smashes the spirit of a human into such a tiny recess that artistic ability is dampened. "Contrarian" would be suggesting the opposite.
Almost any heavily-addled artist you can come up with that retained any talent during their using years was using psychedelics and/or stimulants heavily, with opiate use likely but still secondary. Almost any cash-grabbing burnout piece of shit (Morrison being one of the most obvious examples, there are more than you can even name) mega-star rich artist you can come up with was crippled by opiate addiction in their later years.
Here's a video of John Lennon, who went from marginally talented pop star to arguably woke creative genius for a period during his heavy use of psychedelics, at his last public performance before finally being sucked under by his opiate addiction until his assassination. "No immigration too". Look at this poor motherfucker.
My suspicion is that you have very little experience with drugs and don't really understand the huge distinctions to be drawn between the different categories. Being 24/7 content and sedated is anathema to creativity. We're not idiot grandpas claiming that degenerate pot smokers can't possibly be creative -- we're just not retards who have their entire worldview scrambled by single-issue-voter's rhetoric about marijuana legalization claiming that no category of drug is lethal to productivity. The fact that you are still totally ignoring that Azzar is referring specifically to opiates would imply you draw no distinctions within what you view as one uniform category: "drugs".
You'd have to be stupid to trust McQuaalude or be excited for one of his projects. Nirvana is unlistenable shit. None of you can argue coherently against these key points because both are objective truth. |
But boy does it feel good while it smashes you (no homo)