On being misunderstood

[gurdonark]

"Having so few pupils, I had much time for study. When I got out my Northern sketches and worked on them I found that I had grown. Many of these old Indian sketches I made into large canvases. Nobody bought my pictures; I had no pupils; therefore I could not afford to keep on the studio. I decided to give it up and to go back to Victoria. My sisters disliked my new work intensely. One was noisy in her condemnation, one sulkily silent, one indifferent to every kind of Art.

The noisy sister said, 'It is crazy to persist in this way, --no pupils, no sales, you'll starve! Go back to the old painting.'

'I'd rather starve! I could not paint in the old way--it is dead--meaningless--empty.'

One sister painted china. Beyond mention of that, Art was taboo in the family. My kind was considered a family disgrace."

---Emily Carr

Lately I've followed with interest the various self-help-ish books which spring up lately which extol how creative people are really some powerful new minority, ready to reshape economies and mold thought. Although many creative people I know lack for self-esteem, it's interesting that even being a bit creative is now somehow something to be repackaged into another corporate human growth potential feel-good seminar. One is no longer a bit different--one is now a potential corporate team player, albeit with pink hair.

At the other extreme, one reads too much zine-type material which imagine that rebelling against society's flaws is a new trend of
the current "young" generation, even as that generation is perhaps the most "retro" in my memory. Any student of cultural history, of course, will realize that each over-40 generation for the last ten generations or so has imagined that the world is going to heck-fire in a dollar store plastichandbasket. There's nothing new under the sun, even as new suns rise every day, as they say.

But this post is about the problem which many people, and not just creative people face--the problem of being misunderstood. One comes to learn in life that no matter how simple one imagines one is to understand, one is granted only a very limited set of folks in life who really do understand much about one. One's family members often miss the mark in key ways, and yet know one in frighteningly accurate and "near the bone" ways. One's soulmate friends, by contrast, seem to understand all our inner mysteries, and yet sometimes do not understand at all our banal daily feelings. One's coworkers know so much about one, and yet the vast majority of people I know feel that their coworkers do not understand them at all.

I do not have any cautionary tales of particular idiosyncratic misunderstanding to share from my own life. I'm probably typical of a lot of people on LJ. I do not work at a particularly mysterious job, and my hobby efforts at creative things are undertaken purely for fun. I have a great wife, who largely "gets me", some very close friends who know me well, some wonderful parents and siblings and in-laws, and some good but more distant friends with whom I'm comfortable. I'm not much for discontent, and have one of those turns of mind which runs to being naturally happy. Yet I've always felt a good bit different from most of the people I know. I'm the sort of person whose grade school playmates made up odd nicknames for me ("walking encyclopedia" being the most printable) and whose friends in college always said "You're weird, but weird in a good way". My work reviews back when I was an employee always went down the "brilliant but so eccentric" line. Now that I am an owner of my own firm, I still pursue a path in which I do not worry about "fitting in" as much as I worry about doing what I do best to help folks the most. Although I tried my best to "stay between the lines", my career path has not converted me into someone who is "understood".
In short, I'm pretty much like any thinking person, whose life is fun but not exactly like the daydream.

I posit a theory, however, that, being neither novel nor inventive, may nonetheless suffer from being true. We are all misunderstood. The non-creative person is no less misunderstood than the creative person. I always consider myself straddling the boundaries between those who are naturally artistic and those who are not. I am fundamentally in the latter category, and yet I can speak the language of the former category. My observation is that people in both categories--creative and non-creative (and you'll pardon me if I reductivize and do not point out that there are really not two categories but 100,000)--all feel misunderstood. We all are in need of people who recognize our worth and dignity as people. We all need to be "gotten" on some level.

I am not sure if we all should understand each other better, or if we should just accept that we don't understand, and try to relate to one another in our misunderstanding. But contrary to an earlier era in which "cultural creatives" might argue that only they are disenfranchised from the great well of "fitting in", it seems to me that we live in a time in which nobody fits in. Maybe the key challenge is to realize that, and figure out ways to make things fit.

Comments

[iambliss.livejournal.com]

::jawdrop:: Hurrah, another one who earned the "Walking Encyclopedia" moniker!
I actually tended even more to be the Walking Dictionary; that nickname has recently reassert itself, as our director has a passion for being sure we all understand every word of our lines. I even somewhat one an argument over the pronunciation of the word "machinations" - turned out that the 'ch' can be soft, as in 'machine', as I pronounce it, or har, like a 'k'.

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

You do know a lot, just like a walking Brittanica, but for some reason I'm suddenly reminded of how for years I misprounounced chaos as a child because I only saw it written! Ditto chasm :)

Re:

[iambliss.livejournal.com]

I mispronounced 'chasm', too, until I was reading out loud to my mom on a car ride somewhere, and she told me how it is supposed to be pronounced.
I love my mom.
And hey look - another example of "children will listen."

[marstokyo.livejournal.com]

I'm aware of this latest buzzword in the corporate culture-- the creative savior--and I'm highly suspicious. As if true creativity could ever survive in a bottom line mentality. Hah!!! I resent the notion of being co-opted in this manner by the very antithesis of creativity.

That being said, if I'm hearing you--it sounds like you're saying we're not really opposite sides of the coin-- we're all on the same side of the coin and it's just a matter of individual perception?
I agree that we're all humans, and we all share the same human qualities and needs-- we all are in need of love and acceptance. That's a universal. But speaking as a creative person (I don't think there's any argument there, and this isn't meant to sound cocky)--but you're missing the fundamental difference in creative and non-creative people. And that is product. Creative people invent and *create* a product. Non-creative people work at tasks and function within a given acceptable confine. I have worked at tasks and functioned within a given acceptable confine but I do not know what it's like to be solely non-creative throughout life. Non-creative people, on the other hand work at tasks and function within a given acceptable confine but will NEVER know what it's like to invent and create a product uniquely their own. For that reason, I believe we are on different sides of the coin. With the creative side being less understood by the non-creative side than vice versa. I speak only from personal experience, and realize that I don't truly understand the non-creative individual having never been there. But the difference is they don't create and I do. The why of it all, it another discussion altogether.

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

That was very articulate and well put. But I see the "product" as just one more commodity, albeit a less discreditable one (although the whole comparison resonates for me, somehow, in some odd Cain and Abel way).

I'll hazard an alternative theory--creative people are different only in that they are articulate to express the way in which they are misunderstood.
If non-creative people lack even a product, then they must resign themselves not only being lost in their non-producitivity, but also without a voice or sympathy.

[mockinggreylock.livejournal.com]

As a "non-creative" person in terms of "lacking product," I too will hazard an alternative theory -- creativity is boundless, and to restrict is solely to the creation of physical things is to block one's own creativity.

Something as simple as relating to people is subject to personal creativity. How you express yourself, your thoughts and ideas and feelings and compassion or lack thereof -- this is a role we all play -- making and unmaking each passing moment of our lives. We can create moments of beauty by simply finding, being and expressing ourselves. Art, ultimately, is a communicative form.

Creativity is an endless, boundless, timeless thing. We are not fixed points in time, static, unchanging, individuals. We grow and learn and change and learn and grow some more, every day. We're all alike in what the book of our lives is still being written. Who's to say that the creation of the individual, and expression of self, are not creativity?

The eccentric "wavers" mentioned in earlier delightful gurdonark journal entries are creative -- creating a little kindness and joy that lifts my heart now, just thinking of such people. Is this not communication of some deeper mystery? Is life not art?

[marstokyo.livejournal.com]

I think you're confusing creativity (which in essence is *to make*) with intellectual activity--which all humans experience to a certain degree. Intellectual activity CAN be creative, I'm not saying that-- but to define creativity so broadly as to include all of our choices in life-- I think that's redefining the very nature of creativity to include EVERYONE...and sorry, that just ain't so.

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

life *should be* art, and art life, and I don't care if I sound like a character in Moulin Rouge, although I am afraid I will soon be singing "Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road" while French dancers tap their feet on cabaret gold-encased ceilings, on trapeze :)

Re:

[marstokyo.livejournal.com]

Product is only a commodity if it's sold. Sometimes products are ideas that lead to commodity. Sometimes they are simply ideas-- philosophies. Certainly the philosophers are some of the most creative.
I disagree that creative people are merely expressing the way in which they are misunderstood-- how insulting is that? I don't think truly creative people even expend that much energy on bemoaning their being misunderstood. I think that's a construct of non-creative types who envy other's creative instincts that just seem to flow so naturally. And why shouldn't they be envious. It's pretty damned great. We wouldn't have a lick of progress in the world without creative people making it.
You said:
If non-creative people lack even a product, then they must resign themselves not only being lost in their non-producitivity, but also without a voice or sympathy. This is exactly what I think of non-creative people--especially those who all too frequently find themselves in positions of power governing the very creative people they resent.
Do I resent the non-creative in the world? you better believe it. Do I pity them? why not?

[(Anonymous)]

i find marstokyo's remarks oddly disturbing, yet i'm not sure why.

what's a "product" anyway?

also i must admit a bias against the term "creative"...it barely seems useful. paul valery said that the word "creation" has been so overused that even god must be embarrassed to have it attributed to him.

Re:

[marstokyo.livejournal.com]

well I didn't invent the word, and if it bothers you, I suggest you find an alternative word to describe coming up with original ideas and making something from them.

My remarks probably disturb you because they sound elitist and exclusive-- like I'm a member of a club that won't take someone like you. Maybe I am, and maybe I'm not. Frankly I'm getting tired of hearing people dis themselves and say *aww shucks, I'm just not a creative type of person* when that person makes mail art, takes photographs of good quality, write poetry (albeit bad) etc... know what I'm saying?

[marstokyo.livejournal.com]

Also-- there are certainly degrees of creativity-- which brings in the subjective realm of *criticism*-- how GOOD is the creative product, does it rise to the level of greatness? is it mediocre? can it not even really be considered *creative* because it's merely imitative and does not break new ground, or holds no *truth* within? The subjective factor is another topic entirely. What I'm concerned with in my comments-- is the nature of the creative person versus the non-creative person. I do believe that there are many people out there who don't have a creative bone in their body, and are oddly proud of that. Then there are those who commit original thought, and ideas and expression--even to their daily weblog-- and I consider these people to be *creative*.

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

Yes, those are all interesting points, and I suspect we agree more than we disagree. But ultimately, "creativity" is just too loose a term. It's hard to see where we draw the lines. So many times, what is "good" is a matter of fashion, and what the "elite" says is good. That's why I wonder if judgment doesn't have to be suspended somewhat. That doesn't mean I want to see fluffy bunny knockoffs from the PRC on my walls, but it does mean that all the distinctions we all make seem to alienating sometimes.

Re:

[marstokyo.livejournal.com]

Again-- the distinctions you mention are *subjective* and should be kept apart from determining the nature of the creative act. You see-- a person could sit down with some cotton balls and some glue and make a cute little bunny and with all his heart feel he had truly *made* something. THAT is the creative act. That person is being creative.
There are people who would NEVER do something like that because they think the very idea is stupid. THAT is a non-creative person-- capiche?
What you're talking about are subjective matters of personal taste-- which have to do with styles, trends etc...

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

Your distinction is clearer to me, but using that distinction, it is my belief there are very few truly non creative people, if any.

Re:

[marstokyo.livejournal.com]

Well then maybe the question is not a subjective one of *how good* but more a quantitative one of *How often*-- if a person has one or two creative moments in their life, this does not make them a *creative person*-- as in just a naturally creative type of person. If they have creative moments on a regular basis throughout their life-- then I'd say that they were basically creative people-- though maybe just not as productive as some. (again, we get into degrees). Using this definition, I think you'll agree that there are far more non-creative people than creative. And BTW-- I wish you'd stop counting yourself out of the latter group when clearly that's not true.

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

I think "how often" is a "better" way of looking at it, but I also think that I see the world as much more creative by either definition than you do. Half full, half empty, full stop a blur :)

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure "creative" is useful, either--very good point!

[voodoukween.livejournal.com]

what an excellent discussion to read! as someone said, the Gurdonarkesque quickening which really is more Arian than Leonine in behavior, hmmm, brings forth constructive expression itself

and my personal experience falls well within the words of ms tokyo

[voodoukween.livejournal.com]

i just made up those words Arian and Leonine and take them back

do not want any affiliation with the Arian (sp?) brotherhood

i meant to refer to Aries like and Leo like (both fire signs and frankly the people i often get along best with)

i like to make up words but missed here

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

Funny, my own reference was the Arian heresy, a Christian "heresy" suppressed years ago...I had to double take a bit to get "Aries" :)

Re:

[voodoukween.livejournal.com]

yeah i missed on that one

[licoricestick.livejournal.com]

somehow this post reminded me of a band from Chapel Hill (now from Chicago) called Milemarker. Since I am no good at explaining what I mean sometimes, here is a link to part of their website that deals with their "critical theory" on creativity and post-modernism and whatnot.

http://www.milemarker.org/milemarker/bulk/critical.html

You could probably get a little gist from this quote alone:
The official Milemarker policy continues to be that marriage and familial entanglement is part of the Establishment's plan to make us less committed to our weird art projects, but nonetheless Congratulations to Sean Husick (drummer on Frigid forms Sell and Anaesthetic) on his recent marriage.

Most of the people in this band are in their mid-20s, except one who is I believe 32 or so currently. He writes a fascinating zine called

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] <u>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

somehow this post reminded me of a band from Chapel Hill (now from Chicago) called <i>Milemarker</i>. Since I am no good at explaining what I mean sometimes, here is a link to part of their website that deals with their "critical theory" on creativity and post-modernism and whatnot.

http://www.milemarker.org/milemarker/bulk/critical.html

You could probably get a little gist from this quote alone:
<i>The official Milemarker policy continues to be that marriage and familial entanglement is part of the Establishment's plan to make us less committed to our weird art projects, but nonetheless Congratulations to Sean Husick (drummer on Frigid forms Sell and Anaesthetic) on his recent marriage.</i>

Most of the people in this band are in their mid-20s, except one who is I believe 32 or so currently. He writes a fascinating zine called <a href="http://www.thestranger.com/2002-07-11/books.html"<u>Burn Collector</u></a>.

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

This was interesting, and it raises one of those dualisms that seem to always exist, and yet shouldn't, in my humble, worthless opinion!

[wildgarden.livejournal.com]

The great Zen teacher Dogen said that we are essentially alone, with no possibility of truly understanding another, or of being understood. And even with my closest soul-mate friends, we may be able to 'swim together' but on some level there's a gulf that must be accepted.
As for creative/non-creative people I cannot say that I think there are any non-creative people at all! All of life, all decisions are creative expression. It is so that in our time our creative choices are largely circumscribed by corporate definitions and choosing what car to drive might not look like a creative act, but I think it is.
One might define this division as artists vs. not artists.
And there are some people (I am one, though like you, I am an essentially happy person.) who have a hard time feeling understood. And perhaps this is an impetus to fashion artifacts, music, painting etc. to express a point of view.
Anyway this is the usual Gurdonarkian prod, a little stir to the pot that tends to make me look at my assumptions and define where I stand in relation to this.
And "brilliant but eccentric" is a textbook definition of Sun conjunct Uranus!
(Being a Serious Astrologer I chart every birthday that comes across my path)

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

Sun conjunct Uranus? I know so little about astrology. I only know I'm in Leo :). I like that Dogen quote, as well as the point about non-creative people. It's something I'll to think on more.

creativity is joy ... joy is creating

[steine.livejournal.com]

wrensch pointed me over to this particular thread and now I find myself quite compelled to add my two cents worth :)

I do not consider myself to be a creative/artist type person. Yet every day in my life I now see how I exude that which is my creativity. When I bake goodies for friends I am pour my creative energy and love for my friends into my work. The "product"? Something really yummy that everyone enjoys.

When I garden my energy turns to the colors I have in the plants and where I want to see them when they bloom. It's never a consciously creative process, it is a process of playing in the dirt with unself-conscious joy and childlike abandon. Again my product is never a tangible thing -- it is the joy of creating joy that is my favorite product.

Creative vs. non-creative is truly a moot point since we express creativity in every moment that we truly enjoy what we are doing. Cooking, gardening, painting, drawing, making love, working .... The list is endless.

Re: creativity is joy ... joy is creating

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

Thanks for commenting. Well put, and a very {creative} comment :)!

Re: creativity is joy ... joy is creating

[marstokyo.livejournal.com]

I can see that *creativity* is the bad word in this thread. It must really call up a lot of negative associations for people-- creative/artsy types of people? poseurs who wear the kooky clothes and look the part? maybe the evil art teacher who discouraged you in grade school (doesn't everyone have one of those in their past?)---but none of that has anything to do with real creativity.
You expressed it quite well in describing the things you do that bring you joy--baking, gardening--perfectly creative pursuits--especially in the manner that you pursue them--with zest and joy. You may not consider yourself a *creative/artist* type of person (maybe you don't look that part) but you seem to be a highly creative person.

point taken

[asphalteden.livejournal.com]

The enneagram posits:

People only understand what is familiar: if you exist outside the norms, few will ever understand you.

Yes. Yes.

I think it is just fine.

[asphalteden.livejournal.com]

I did not think I had much to add to this post, but I was washing dishes before and something small came to mind:

For me it is not the desire to understand someone, which I feel might be impossible and not a healthy thing to wish for. In my life, I have little want to understand Jack Vance or Gurdonark or Bianca. It is a pleasure (or love) to know someone well, and have an intuitive relationship with them; but understand? I'm not so sure.

I think the real pleasure comes from working to understand another individual, though this mythical gestalt may never come to pass. When one works with another to learn more about the other, share opinions & values, argue points, experience the same things in life in different ways ... I think that is the real pleasure.

Attaining "true understanding" with another seems to be rather like living the fantasy and finding it to be rather mundane after all. It is dangerous when one begins to desire unreasonable things. The old "grass is greener" syndrome, in a way. I'm just thankful I've met a small number of people who are interested in me (and vice versa; that I can share the world, in some respect, and have a valuable intimacy with them--much like the private intimacy within myself.

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

I think you really brought a different perspective (not to mention a cool enneagram) to this, and got me really thinking :).

Is the search for intimacy a distance-creating device?
Hmmm......

[(Anonymous)]

all the talk about creativity led away from the central question of understanding. when you said "it's dangerous to desire undesirable things" you made me think:

i always wondered about claims of "understanding" another person...too often i have experienced it as patronizing. and it can be dangerous certainely

on the other hand, finding someone interesting is a dynamic state, much more desirable. it is engagement;

i'd rather be considered interesting than understood, because i know the later is impossible

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

I think it is grand to be found interesting, or to have people "understand" one, but I'll settle for a simple smile and a good conversation almost anytime.