A Genius for Me

Er....can I use a lifeline? (I was going to nominate skunk but I didn't want to embarrass him.)

Beethoven, Leonardo, Newton, etc; different class. Renaldo, Best, Beckham; it's a lot easier to be a genius these days...or maybe we have just dropped the standards or expect less - and get it!
Good one, interesting and so true. (I still think Mona was an ugly bitch though)

Chris

But were they appreciated in their lifetimes or has history decided they were geniuses?

Are there people today who can paint as well as Mr. Olde Master? Too bloody right there are. Any number of them. But where would they sell their paintings? We want tents with names written on them and coloured circles and lights that go on and off.

Are there people doodling the future's universal observation bacteria, which will one day spy on us all internally, on scraps of paper? Certainly, but until somebody builds said observation bacteria, we won't know which are the idle doodlers and which the predictive geniuses.

One problem is that a fine mind comes in a human package. Geniuses are very often weirdos and nobody wants to get too close to one in real life, let alone put one on the telly. Put a few hundred years between us and them and all we'll remember is that they invented gravity so that we could all stick to the ground. We won't recall that they wandered around in their underpants spitting at horses.

Society always has valued ancient genius and modern crap.

Here endeth the lesson.

There is a shit load of truth in that FTSE and I wonder, if a lot of it isn't begrudgers, refusing (or too jealous) to admit the obvious? The likes of Picasso seems to have stayed around long enough to live within the legend but - as you say - was he any better than some bloke down the street who was painting birds with faces that didn't have both eyes on the same side of their fizzog.
Is it subjectivity, or luck - or who-you-know?

Aah an enldess and irresoluble debate which philosphers no doubt would happily chew over.

I think 'genius' is or has become a matter for personal interpretation. Consider these definitions:

gen·ius
n. pl. gen·ius·es

a. Extraordinary intellectual and creative power.
b. A person of extraordinary intellect and talent: "One is not born a genius, one becomes a genius" (Simone de Beauvoir).
c. A person who has an exceptionally high intelligence quotient, typically above 140.

Surely there are a number of geniuses amongst us? Though I have enough nouse and sense of self preservation to not name any individuals.

Prompted by mention of Picasso, (and he produced some exquisite representational drawings)I wonder if prolificacy may be a factor. If so, that would give you more than a fighting chance of being deemed a genius Ewan.

Hahaha...

Never mind the quality, feel the width.

B...us too, then?

People miss the point of the Cubists anyway, they were trying to draw the back of the cube, if you see what I mean. Picasso was a genius by any definition.

I doubt if Dali, for example, was, though.

I agree with you ref Picasso and Dali. Dali was in my view a complete fruitcake, sadly haunted by nightmare images and god knows what in his head. So my guess is that everything he did was the result of art therapy. Which has it's place of course.

Yes it has; it's called the internet!

Sorry, couldn't resist! :-D

Haha - fell into a trap of my own making there!

I certainly found your comments FTSE most enlightening. It was nice to see the poem elicit them !!!.

Oh, and Dali was undoubtedly a genius..........

That's your opinion and you are perfectly entitled to it; mine remains that he was an excellent draughtsman and as tricksy as any surrealist, but a genius...hmm.

You might like to read what Brian Sewell has to say about the man some have been known to refer to as the Catalan Charlatan:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/arts/article-23398918-details/The+Dali+I+k...

Regards

Ewan

Hi,
Sewell acknowledges Dali's genius 'though no match for Michelangelo'. Obviously there are gradations. It is such a personal thing, from minor to major. People will dispute Agatha Christie was a genius (despite sales of 2billion) but they are probably misunderstanding just what genius is.

Ah... quantity, not quality? Agatha Christie created two of the most memorable characters in detective fiction, but again I wouldn't describe her as a genius. The point of the poem is, in fact, that my own opinion is that the word has been devalued. Such judgements are perhaps subjective. However, would you describe JK Rowling as a genius? I wouldn't, but in common with everyone who believes in reading, I bless the day she first sat writing longhand in an Edinburgh cafe.

Yes, I know you think the term 'genius' has been devalued, but I posit that the 'great intellect' concomitant is just that, a concomitant. There are other things which make a 'genius'. Catherine Cookson was a genuis too, but yes, only had a basic education. I think we must agree to disagree. I don't think 'genius' has been devalued, it was always what it is, I just think the lay man does not fully understand the ramifications. And, of course, there are biggies (undisputed, a la Shakespeare) and minnows, (L.P. Hartley from the adverts, say, though of course he is not real, unless he's the author of the Shrimp and the Anemone, in which case he has quite a good claim !!!.)

Incidentally, I read Sewell's article as one of the finest examples of damning with faint praise I have ever read.