Inspiration vs Eureka

I am surrounded by artists at the moment; some are painters, others are sculptors and each of them interesting to say the least.  Due to this contact, inevitably a few heated debates have occurred regarding art, the value of art, creativity and also language. Needless to say I fought in the corner of language and was heavily outnumbered!  However the point I want to write here is a line I heard often in these conversations, and one you hear often from artists in general; the need for inspiration.

I find this an interesting concept as it is not one I understand or relate to.  In my mind (as a language and knowledge lover, and by NO means an artist) I believe the two most famous accounts of human inspiration were Archimedes’ bath moment and Newton’s apple; both stories are folklore, and both disguise the amount of time, thought and effort that went into the background of the ‘eureka’ moment.  For an historian, we know that inspiration is of little use to us without the research behind it so we are waiting for the ‘eureka’, the moment when things click into place rather than a quasi-divine moment of understanding/creation.

At the moment, within my own research, I am still waiting for my next eureka; I did however have what I like to call a “HA!” moment.  I was told by an academic that I could not prove an idea I had regarding Ancient Greek warfare because the evidence was just not there, an annoying reality to ancient history I admit.  But from some relaxed reading of Thucydides on the tube (a bit of light reading, if you will), on my way to work, I let out a semi-victorious “HA!” (much to the concern of the few commuters around me) because I could prove my idea just by re-defining my parameters.  This was a break-through for my work, granted, but not a moment of realisation, and definitely not inspiration.

After a few more “HA!”’s I may get my ‘eureka’, but in years to come I could shorten the story to just the ‘eureka’ and so create my own myth of ‘inspired’ work.  In my opinion this would belittle all the small and incremental developments that were necessary along the way.

Anyway, back to our artists.  I don’t suppose they can just draw randomly until inspiration hits them, and thus exemplifies the difference between art and research.  No doubt this debate will continue until one of us has that eureka moment . . . or maybe we will become inspired!

This entry was posted in Ancient History & My Research, Tangents and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Inspiration vs Eureka

  1. Paul Elwick says:

    Further to our discussion I would say a lot of artists draw and draw and paint and paint and sculpt and…(or whatever their field of endeavour might be) until inspiration strikes.
    Sometimes that’s the only way in! Just sitting and thinking about creating a piece of art isn’t really going to work unless your genius is beyond measure.
    I think the Swiss artist Paul Klee called it “Taking a line for a walk”.
    Good luck with your eureka moment, let’s hope that it’s not Archimedes’ and Newton’s experience combined and something lands on your head while you’re in the bath.

    • owen says:

      Hi Paul, that is interesting; and if I remember rightly didn’t you say Picasso has mountains of work books? The same is true of Da Vinci. Two men considered to be ‘genius’, both hard workers. I don’t know, as I am not an artist, if the point of artistic inspiration and intellectual ‘eureka’ are comparable but they are described very differently by the corresponding participants. In the meantime I shall beware stray apples in the bath.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *