Friday, October 10, 2003

The drunk arts

Some artforms lend themselves nicely to drunkenness, and some make it difficult. Painting, writing, and playing music are good drunk arts. Dancing, filmmaking, and photography are not. As a filmmaker, you’re gonna fuck up the film loading, you’re gonna set the lens wrong, you’re gonna drop stuff, and then when you’re editing you’re likely to get your tongue caught in the splicer. This is the real advantage to digital video: not so many moving parts.

However, in my experience, photography can be a good hungover art. Assuming you can see, can stand, and aren’t going to vomit, you may have more attention to detail when hungover. Although you are less likely to do well with portraits or fashion, because you don’t want to talk to these people, product shots can go fine. Especially when the assistant, seeing that you are a big wreck, just goes ahead and does everything.

I think the general rule of thumb is, if there are a lot of small steps, it isn’t a good drunk art. If it’s something you can get flowing and merely adjust, you can do it drunk. And I invite you to.

by Jack, October 10, 2003 9:30 PM | More from Drinking

Within the Chronology

« Diary of a train pervert | Home | Wonderful town »



5 Comments

Fanta said:

As a painter, I take offense at the suggestion that painting can be done drunk. Despite the impression left by that stinking rummy Pollack, painting is an intelligent art that requires focus, strategy and discipline. Try to achieve the delicate balance between oil paint, thinner and medium, while still trying to keep the new layers "fatter" than your ground, mister anti-paintite. Personally, I have taken many photos while drunk and they look sweet (if not just a little out of focus)!

Jack said:

Don't try to blind me with that technical jargon. All the painters I know have more thinner in their blood than on their palettes. However, I only recently discovered that Van Gogh was considering accompanying Gaugin to Tahiti. That would have been nuts.

LoneStarMBA said:

Playing music as a good drunk art? I beg to differ. Being in Clear Lake TX's hottest Scotch fueled rock band I've seen a few things that would prove otherwise.

I've held the bass player up as he had to "gain his footing" in the middle of a song.

As the guy with the mic I've had to come up with witty crowd banter while the guitar player explained to the drummer which drum to start on.

And, not to be out done, I've found the guitar player laying in the dew covered grass, picked him up, brushed him off, and informed him we had another set to play.

While a little sauce loosens the attitude and lightens the spirit, drunkeness is never a good thing with insturments in hand.

Yours in rock.

Jack said:

First the painters were after me. Now it's the musicians. If this keeps up, no one will admit to being a drunken artist at all.

Also, please keep in mind, Mr. MBA, that the drunk guys you mention were not incapable of performing, since you made them do it, they just would have preferred not to. That's sort of how I feel about this blog. But I have my duty.

P. Frottage said:

Interesting thought. I think Van Gogh's main problem was that he ate too much paint. And the only reason anyone reads Noa Noa is for the parts about Paul G. tappin' them hot Tahitian teens. Vincent would never have gone for that. He would've wandered around the island going, "Who the hell ate all the paint?"

Leave a comment