1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
    PLEASE HELP
    Dismiss Notice

Australia - Dreadful truth about drugs in the arts.

Discussion in 'Weird News' started by Docta, Mar 2, 2013.

  1. Docta

    Docta Idiot Savant Palladium Member Donating Member

    Reputation Points:
    7,211
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Male from Australia
    [imgr=white]http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=31569&stc=1&d=1362224024[/imgr]IN RESPONSE to the Australian Crime Commission's damning report on drugs in sport, the Australian Artistic Anti-doping Authority Headquarters (AAAAH!) has just released its own alarming findings on the widespread use of prohibited performance-enhancing drugs among Australian actors, writers, filmmakers, sculptors, and even, surprisingly, musicians.

    At a press conference yesterday, the national president of the Australian Poets Union, Sophia Srpkinja Srbljanovic (Sista L. Fresh), declared this to be ''The blackest day in the history of Australian arts … a black day beyond black/ black as/ a Death-Tree in/ a dead/ night/ mummy, I hate you/ mummy/ I love you/ oh mummy … mummy'', then she stripped naked and threw herself into an inflatable pool filled with turkey gravy as an act of ritual purification.

    More than 150 arts practitioners were interviewed over a three-month period, many making themselves available for the entire three months because they were unemployed, others needing to head off after lunch for their shift at Gloria Jean's. And their candid feedback reveals endemic drug use across multiple artistic codes. Several stage actors admitted that drugs were openly available in both independent and mainstream theatre environments, usually ''facilitated'' by theatrical support staff (a stage manager with a bucket-bong).

    A TV actor, who wishes to remain anonymous, confessed to using prohibited substances to aid recovery after a day of strenuous work playing the role of Legal Clerk #2 in Crownies. He added that his name was Damian Morgan, he had hazel eyes, brown hair, could ride a horse, and was represented by Talent Limited.

    Anti-doping investigations also focused on live-music clubs and venues, where professional musicians are suspected of administering a ''variety of substances'', specifically targeted at improving endurance in songwriting, stagecraft and ''after-show backstage shenanigans''.
    Club manager Dave ''the Broski'' Smythe-Rimington strongly denies these allegations, stating that ''No musician would ever partake in the use of banned drugs! I mean, that would undermine the integrity and image of Australian rock'n'roll! It's as preposterous as suggesting that stand-up comedians are working under the influence of illicit stimulants! I mean, c'mon, get real!''

    A representative from the Street Entertainers Alliance has come forward with evidence exposing busking's dark practices. Wibbly the Wobbly Wizard claims that street performers regularly use Busking Androgen-Receptive Marijuana (BARMs), to increase unicycling confidence, maintain street-statue stillness, and develop fake cockney accents.
    Waving around his wobbly wizard wand, Wibbly angrily accuses these drug cheats of creating an unfair playing field: ''That's why they rake in a whopping 10 to 20 bucks an hour down at Southbank, while here I am, outside Lord of the Fries, scraping together four bucks a day, which I have to split with my enchanted, magical beaver puppet, Smuffalo. It's tough to make a living when you busk clean, let me tell you!''

    The National Writers League confirmed that several elite writers were being tested for doping activities. As one whistleblower-writer confided, ''When you think of what we do on a week-to-week, day-to-day basis, just sitting for hours in front of our computers - there's lots of pressure, you need to keep a high-performance competitive edge when playing online table tennis or entering a WEBoggle tournament. Sometimes you need an extra little kick along, y'know what I mean?''

    Fronting the media this morning, the Minister for the Arts said: ''Australians have always loved their arts, the arts encapsulate this nation's identity, and these findings will disgust millions of arts fans who believe in fair play. Yes, we all get pleasure from obscure fringe gamelan-chamber-operas, or derivative Jean-Michel Basquiat-inspired gallery exhibitions, or whimsical laser sculptures projected onto urban cathedrals, but at what cost, I ask you? At what cost?''

    http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/w...h-about-drugs-in-the-arts-20130301-2fbt5.html
     

    Attached Files:

  2. BitterSweet

    BitterSweet Titanium Member

    Reputation Points:
    2,190
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2011
    Messages:
    928
    Female from Canada
    EDIT: Just realized this is not a serious news article (kind of skimmed over it then commented lol) but I was excited because it fit in with another thread debating creativity and drug use :) haha. I'm not gunna erase what I replied even though it's embarrassing I took it seriously (after actually reading the article and not skimming), so have a good laugh at what I wrote. But mainly I was just getting at the link between creative people and if that leads them to drug use.

    Here is the thread about the relationship between drugs and creativity that I've made a few lengthy replies in. URL="http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=207857"]Are drug users more creative than most?[/URL]

    I see a lot of things in this article that sway my opinion that I expressed in that thread, mostly that people with the creativity trait are no more prone to drug addiction than other traits, but we feel there is a strong link between creative people and drug use because of highly publicized people - we are exposed to these stories because the people are famous, and the people are famous usually for some unique creative ability, thus we are not exposed to the many other cases of drug use where creativity was not the culprit. Basically the conclusion was that some people handle their creativity differently and that may cause them to turn to drugs. However, I never considered officially creative people (people whose livelihood depends on their creative talents). I can now see how a livelihood based on creativity can lead to drug use compared to other professions. I mostly talked about people who are creative but not necessarily dependent on their creativity to a huge extent. So maybe there is a very strong link between creativity and drug use, but depending on how that creativity manifests. I can see how there is pressure for these people.

    But if these people are naturally creative, and then engage in drug use, is this really that bad? Who is to say that the drugs give them an advantage? It could make them look like complete quaked out fools. It is all about the finished product. Besides, we are talking about creativity here - something that flows in all types of directions. Whose to say that it needs to be natural? If that were the case, a lot of the famous creative things we have today might never have existed. In terms of 'fair play' among people in the business who are competition for each other, I don't know if complaints about an unfair advantage are really credible complaints. I think it is different then performance enhancing drugs in sports because those drugs are used to give them peak physical abilities - something that is obviously important to exceed in sports. Using drugs to inspire creativity doesn't necessarily mean the artist in question is going to end up with a good result. 'Performance' is subjective in that it can be enhanced, in comparison to how athletes can achieve enhanced performance beyond what is natural from the body.

    I wonder what substances these are and how they actually improve endurance in songwriting, stagecraft, and after-show shenanigans. What does improvement in songwriting endurance even mean, and why is that a bad thing? Are we talking about a drug like adderall? And after-show shenanigans... what does that even mean?

    Isn't Rock n Roll known for drugs?! How would it undermine the integrity and image... and as for his analogy, I'm sure there are stand-up comedians under the influence of illicit stimulants, so it really isn't that preposterous. I'd just like to know what these so called illicit drugs and stimulants are, and why anyone is chocked anyway considering there is a common view about creativity and drugs?

    Here is a copy and paste of what I wrote in the thread about creativity:

    Sure, I think drugs can induce creativity for many people since drugs alter one's state of mind, so they are open to experiences that otherwise wouldn't occur. What type of drugs are you referring to? Or just drugs in general? I've never done LSD or other hallucinogen type drugs, but those seem to be the more likely drugs to help with creativity, since it alters your mind in a different way than other drug classes.

    This can be a pretty subjective debate. Are we looking at a person who is not creative at all but once on drugs is suddenly creative? But you do say you have friends who are naturally inclined so thus it only makes sense that these people don't need drugs to be creative, but they may become creative in other ways if under the influence of drugs. The object of creativity is important too - i.e. painting, writing, dancing, drawing, singing, having new ideas, etc. Drugs can provoke a deep sense of philosophical thought too.

    I would say that I have always been a creative writer, but the writing process involves motivation/effort, focus, and not being consumed by other things to the point where there is a disinterest in the activity. When I've been depressed, writing wasn't something I felt to do, but times of despair can often produce really good insight when the emotions are not bottled up. When I've been on amphetamines, the brain is going like a million miles per second, and you feel super focused and motivated and it just seems easier to write well or creatively and this energetic and focused high can be channeled in other creative ways. You can get pretty obsessive on drugs like adderall, so drawing a picture could probably be more intense and done in a better way then if not high.

    I don't really understand when you say that the drug using culture has a great need for creativity to have a drug using lifestyle; the wording of this sentence is kind of confusing to begin with. So I think you are kind of saying that people need to be creative to live a drug using lifestyle as per the nature of the drug using culture, and you are basing this off of the fact that the people you know who have a drug using lifestyle are creative people naturally; so saying that there is or might be a correlation.

    I don't find this to be the case at all. I don't see any specific trend in the people I know or have known who use drugs to be any different from another person using drugs. I don't see any reason to think there is a large enough link between creativity and drug use to actually contemplate the matter. Anyone can have a drug using lifestyle, and I don't think that there is a great need for creativity to get them there.

    And here is a follow up post:
    Those are some good examples of celebrities/well-known figures that wound up on drugs, but we are only exposed to these examples because the people are famous; so there is a huge population of stories where creativity hasn't played a role in drug attraction that we aren't exposed to. People in the spotlight usually have some sort of talent or uniqueness - so to see a lot of these people who have a creative talent (acting, writing, producing, painting, etc.) turn to drug use, it might seem obvious that there is a correlation, but the fact that they have a life of scrutiny and pressure and whatever else comes with fame could be the more likely reason for a tendency towards drug use. Also, exposure to drugs, alcohol and the party lifestyle is common for people in the spotlight who are up and coming stars, so this may be a large factor to explain why the person seems to have their act together at the beginning only to deteriorate as their fame grows. There are also a lot of celebrities that are reportedly hooked on drugs that really aren't creative in the first place - an example being Lindsey Lohan.

    I've listened to Eminem's relapse and recovery albums, and what started his drug use was using sleep medication to induce sleep after working long hours on the set of his movie 8 Mile. He found it was too hard to work so long and then instantly shut down for the four hours of sleep he was able to get; the sleep meds would knock him right out, and his use of drugs just progressed from there. He talks about losing all creativity and getting serious writer's block throughout his addiction, but he did slowly get his creativity back during his sobriety.

    Anyway, as to the sentence I quoted above, I don't think that the creativity trait is any more or any less distinct in leading to drug use than other personality traits. I know many, many people with creative talent that show no preference for drugs, and sometimes even detest, but there are also creative people that end up on drugs - I would say it is subjective as to what other traits the person has and where the creativity originates from, and perhaps people react to being creative in different ways, or for some people creativity is partnered alongside another trait, a combination making them more prone to drug use (perhaps a disposition of depression, sadness, feeling of being different than other people). If this other particular trait changes or disappears, maybe the creativity by itself wouldn't be enough to lead the person to drug use - for example, overcoming chronic depression or having a new disposition towards life.

    Like I stated in my first response, I consider myself to have naturally creative writing abilities, but this creativity has had no impact on the reason I turned to drugs. And the creativity has been better or worse at different times depending on many factors, such as being able to focus and not be side tracked by other worries. As well, creativity surely shapes what the final result looks like, but it takes a lot of time and effort to sort through the creativity, polish it up, etc. Sometimes it is near impossible to get any creativity going, and maybe that could be a factor that would lead a usually creative person to drug use, but not sufficient by itself.

    Also, random thought - I feel like the type of creativity that helps make a person a good actor isn't one that would lead to drug use in most cases (compared other 'types' of creativity like writing or painting) since their natural talent/uniqueness/creativity/artistic creativity is only enhanced or used efficiently
    through hard work, inquisition, focus/relaxed mindset, etc. and drugs would just take a hold of any ability to focus on the task at hand and would destroy the productiveness needed to be successful in acting (memorizing lines, etc.). I suppose I am saying it's not the type of creativity that could lead one to feel that drug use might have a positive effect on their artistic nature - sort of like drugs would do what it does to some talented people; dull or mangle a good thing.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2013
  3. Exitlude

    Exitlude Titanium Member

    Reputation Points:
    594
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Messages:
    335
    Male from Australia
    I think it is worth pointing out that this "news article" is not an article of news. It is satire published in the comment section of a media outlet and is entirely made up. The "Australian Artistic Anti-doping Authority Headquarters" is not a real organisation and the quotes contained in the story are made up.

    Also I'll mention that I really enjoyed reading your post in the creativity thread BitterSweet, some very well-composed points!
     
  4. BitterSweet

    BitterSweet Titanium Member

    Reputation Points:
    2,190
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2011
    Messages:
    928
    Female from Canada
    Well, that's too funny. I'm such a dork! I was wondering why the authority had such a dumb name. Why is this included in news though? Not that I care if it should or shouldn't be but I'm just curious. I think I'll treat this article like a case discussion for that creativity thread; yes, I can recover from this social blunder lol

    I'd just like to note that I didn't read the introductory quote until now. I skimmed through it. Ughh haha