|
I have nothing to declare except my genius.
- Oscar Wilde
One of the fallacies of a democratic society is the mistaken notion
that under the banner of freedom, anyone can become a genius. Once the
crown worn by a handful of aristocrats of the human race, the idea of
genius has now become so fully democratized that it has become mundane.
Like common sense, nearly everyone thinks they possess genius in abundance.
Artistic-intellectual circles are particularly notorious for their claim
to overflow with geniuses. Even a cursory glance at the recent international
press reveals that genius in the arts has become so mundane that it
is virtually impossible to succeed without it. An English postmodern
film maker is reported to have an "innate genius for irony";
an Italian opera star has "a galloping genius for sensuality";
and a Russian choreographer is hailed for his "genius of motion".
A South American author, a Parisian librettist, a Russian ice-skating
queen and a New Orleans chef all wear the grown of genius.
Wherever we look, such geniuses seem to surround us. In the theatre,
on the screen, in the plastic arts, and in fashion design, it is taken
for granted that one must be a genius to become someone. Georgio Armani
goes as far as to claim that in the field of fashion design "genius
is a prerequisite for success" In architecture, literature and
various forms of criticism, it is no longer enough to be considered
bright or brilliant. Architect Howard Johnson stated that "even
talent no longer counts. Only out-and-out genius will suffice."
Like love and marriage or horse and carriage, creativity and genius
go together.
As if to prove that genius is within the grasp of nearly all, psychologists
and educators are busy churning out methods of child-rearing that promise
to make geniuses of our children. Even the middle-aged are not beyond
hope, and a variety of charlatans, quacks and curmudgeons-at-large (many
of whom publish best selling books) promise that if only we follow their
method, genius is a maximum of two months away. So far has this notion
gone that the entire spectacle of serious art today is based upon the
conception of genius. In fact, to be involved in any artistic or intellectual
endeavor today without having a chance of being recognized as a genius
is such a heartbreaking notion that people have killed themselves for
less.
All of this talk is nonsense of course, an out-and-out contradiction
in terms, for we have forgotten that genius is the most uncommon and
valuable thing in the world. By any classical definition, the idea of
genius was literally a gift from the gods, one only rarely bestowed
upon a mortal, in which an impersonal creativity seemed to flow effortlessly
from the mortal fountain, as in the case of a Plato, Shakespeare or
Mozart. Under this conception, willpower was less important than the
notion of sublime rarity, whereby the great gift seemed to have been
deposited within the human being at birth and then simply bided its
time until that moment when it unfolded into humbling reality.
It is worth exploring the paradox of how the meaning of the word "genius"
has degenerated. The shift probably started with therise of individualism
and romanticism in the 19th century. Suddenly, society seemed to encourage
the development of egos that sought out genius as the burning light
of their personal salvation. Thomas Carlyle pronounced that the world
could no longer be satisfied with anything less than "genius-art".
Nietszche wrote of man's "insatiable need to make a new Heaven
out of his own Hell". Dostoevsky, Beethoven and Gauguin, were all
fully conscious of the desirability of being geniuses. Genius had become
separated from an act of nature. It had been reduced to a question of
willpower.
This conception of genius has perpetuated in our lifetime, albeit for
different reasons. Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg suggested that our
current desire to attain genius has a direct relationship to the amount
of confusion in the world. Kohlberg's chain of logic is simple: the
more uncertainty that exists on a day to day level, the more frantic
becomes the life of contemporary men and women. Because life means change
and insecurity today, nearly all intelligent people feel, at some moment
or another, that they are outcasts, exiles forced to struggle not only
for physical survival but for the vindication of their being. It may
be natural under such super-pressures to project our egos to desperate
altitudes. Genius can be one's justification for living.
One might ask, "what remains of true genius?" In the sciences,
mathematics and philosophy one can still see an occasional genius of
the old school, where great mental ability and originality are separated
from desire and where the objectivity of the work gives purity to those
who shine at it. Sadly, however, even this kind of genius - with a tradition
that includes such great figures as Darwin, Spinoza and Einstein - is
no longer perceived as colossal in the eyes of society. The limelight
has shifted from the "pure genius" of the sciences to the
self-created genius of the arts. Here the field is wide open because
the arts depend upon individualism and self-inspired originality, the
furthest bid that a single person can make for glory. In this sense,
the arts are the last refuge for the individual to act out his attempt
at personal redemption, power and godliness.
So prized is the quality of genius that it is rare not to run into tens
(perhaps hundreds) of people in nearly any professional endeavor who
confidentially tell you, or let it be torn from them, that they are
geniuses. Alas, as genius becomes a mass phenomenon, we have the feeling
that we have checked into a hotel filled with 500 Dostoevskis. The
true meaning of genius loses its reality. Genius has become as common
as toothpaste.
© Daniel Rogov
|
