surroundingsignifiers

I ran across an excellent article today from Stefan Boublil on Inspiration Fetishism (found through PSFK). Stefan asks the important question concerning whether the internet makes creatives more interested in that which inspired the creative object than the object itself. That is to say, do we respect the work of art or the conditions that made it possible?

Merely asking the question assumes a value judgment: that we should value the object more than the process. Stefan seems to be arguing (this is only my reading, and I hope he will correct me if I'm wrong) for a return to object appreciation. Does this de-value the work involved in creating art, as finding inspiration is certainly part of that process? Perhaps. But I think the larger impetus for asking the question is of more importance here.

The words "inspiration" and "fetishism" are immensely interesting, especially in combination. "Inspiration" has roots in Old French and Latin words relating to "spirit," "being of the gods," and "to blow into, breathe, and inflame." So to inspire is quite literally to inflame someone with the breath of the gods. When writers in the epic genre invoke the Muse, they are asking for inspiration. These authors are not agents of language; they are nothing more than vessels through which the gods speak.

"Fetishism" is a Portuguese, Latin, and Spanish hybrid related to art, the act of making something, sorcery, and artificiality. It has only recently become related to sexual objects and things that are thought to hold a power for which there is no basis. That power, for example, can be religious (a crucifix), sexual (leather), or otherwise. For Karl Marx, commodities are the universal fetish; for Sigmund Freud, they represent a displacement of libido. Either way, it relates to a perceived necessity without which one cannot perform a certain function.

A working definition of Inspiration Fetishism might be "the perception that a higher power outside the self must intervene before true art can be created." The idea being that we cannot participate in artistic creation until we are "inflamed" with the breath of the gods. Such a perception leaves us constantly hunting for novel sources of inspiration and results in the fascination with the artistic process. If we believe, whether correctly or incorrectly, that something "higher"--more intelligent, more creative, more in tune with the world--than us must inject itself into the equation before art occurs, then of course we fetishize the process of inspiration. The object no longer matters; the dominant source of value becomes how the object became to be.

So the next logical question is (and I think Stefan was asking this all along) whether inspiration is truly necessary for an individual to create art? If so, then designating it as a fetish is incorrect. But if not, the whole creative process needs to be re-examined with this in mind.