If you don’t stop reading, I’ll start writing

First of all, i’d like to thank my roomie for inspiring me to write this.

Sleep evades you when you desperately try to chase it. But you still keep trying in the vain hope that eventually you’ll fall asleep. Ah! What would we do without hope?

A conversation i had with a friend comes to mind. He said, “All great writers/artists were troubled souls.” I wonder if there is any substance to this argument. Even as i think about it, that statement seems to make a lot of sense. In order to produce a great work of art, the artist (read author/creator) has to go through something equally moving. This, i feel, gives the artist a burning desire to create something. It almost lights up a fire within which subsides only after that feeling/emotion is given an outlet in the form of expression (prose, sketch, tune, et al). Personally, i have found that the best of my blogs have been written when i was either disturbed or excited about something (this is not to suggest that I’ve produced master pieces ;). What i mean is that i was nowhere near my normal self when i started writing those ‘good’ posts.

I wish there were a switch which could be used to turn on the creative brain (right brain). Something like an ACTIVATE_RIGHT() function followed by GET_CREATIVE() would be really helpful. On second thought, wouldn’t that have led to a commoditization of creativity? Had that really happened, I wouldn’t have liked it for sure.

Probably that is why creativity commands a premium. Or does it?

Not all creative endeavors are ‘successful’. And what exactly defines a successful piece of art?
The monetary value assigned to it? The satisfaction the artist derives from the work? The pleasure the patrons derive from it? Or a bit of all these? Is there a formula which defines the right mix/blend of all these?

I wonder...

Objectivity

Objectivity: How do i define it?

Is it the intersection of my reality & your reality?

When my world & your world seem to agree, does that mean that both of us are looking at the same thing objectively?  What if my own world is not objective enough?

Wait a minute. Did i say objective “enough”?

Now where did that come from? Does objectivity exist in varying degrees?

And how did the word ‘objective’ come to mind?

Probably from ‘subjective’. And what exactly is subjective? Guess it means something that exists in one’s mind. And since it exists only in the mind, it is not ‘real’. So when we are being subjective about something it simply means that you & i look @ the same thing but perceive it differently in our minds.

Going by this definition of subjective, ‘objective’ could be defined as that which exists outside the mind; reality “as it is”. But who defines reality?

Assuming there’s an authority who defines it, won’t he run the risk of being subjective himself?

Answers anyone?