Van Gogh - Life ain't as sweet without the bitter

It's interesting how the unhappiness of somebody's life can be celebrated from an acceptable distance if it brought entertainment and understanding to others. Van Gogh is a perfect example of this. Would we rather he was a happy, well adjusted human being with a comfortable, easy life? Or are we actually happy he suffered the misery he did as we celebrate his genius?


As a society we have no problems extracting the beauty without questioning the source, sometimes a little too lightly. Some obviously appreciate the entire package of Van Gogh's existence but some just appreciate the beauty without seeing the sadness, not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that.

I am fully aware of the importance of suffering throughout the arc of a person's life. Van Gogh experienced higher highs than most but as a result had to deal with the lower lows, many would consider this both a blessing and a curse. The majority of society lives in a mundane medium in which they rarely venture too far in either direction of happiness or sadness. We are all kept in our safe bubbles of content.

Personally I would rather be someone that experiences life to the full, someone who appreciates beauty and misery so much that they experience both bliss and depression in a fluctuating process. Anytime i drift to far into the middle I usually self destruct because feeling misery is still feeling something right? It's the not feeling anything at all that is the curse. Based on this logic, I certainly agree Van Gogh was the lucky one.

Assumed Familiarity

Can't we all just get along? No, probably not. Often, we can all assume such a great deal from other people. We assume they are at the same point in life that we are and will automatically understand our point of view, which is shaped by a lifetime of unique and personal experience. I was born in 1981. You may have been born in 1969. What does this mean? It means that you are on a different path to me and will share similar experiences in recent times, but will have approached them from such a different perspective. This seems like such an obvious thing to point out, but it also seems to be society's biggest downfall, that being the lack of ability to empathise with others.

Then there are other times, particularly as we get older we develop a particular type of screening process. This actually helps us recognise that we have nothing in common with certain people and encourages isolation for many people.

Finding the balance between these two approaches will lead to a healthy outlook, if we deviate too far to either side then we'll probably have problems!

The problem of choice - Stranger than fiction

Choice is supposed to be a liberating concept, it's supposed to free us from the shackles of a prisoned life where we are forced to follow only one path. But too much choice is cripling. If the person presented with this choice is an over analytical soul, then he will often reject this choice and self destruct. Why make a choice when you can simply drift along in life?

Well, making a choice, even if it takes you down a wrong path is indeed better than making no choice at all. There is a beautiful illustration as to why this is the case in the film "Stranger than fiction." In this film Will Farrell is advised by Dustin Hoffman to stay at home, not to answer the phone, door, post, basically to cut out all communication. By doing this, he can prevent the plot/storyline/HIS LIFE! from progressing in a way that he deems out of his conrol. What happens is a balldozer comes through his window, forcing the social interaction from him regardless.

The message? You can't run and you can't hide from choice. Make decisions before life makes them for you.

(The day I take my own advice will be the day you see a genius emerge! Untill then..)

A lot of people ask me, where the fuck I've been at. I don't know....but I do know, I'm back now.