"Man, what a weird piece of impactful fictional #
art ! What drugs was this guy on?"
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but just because you can use drugs and be a creative person doesn't mean drugs make you a creative person.
Anyone who has used psychoactive drugs and tried being creative using them can tell you (or at least their audiences can) that it doesn't actually make your ideas original, impactful, or comprehensible. It makes them weird in a way that is easily identifiable as originating from drug use, and not identifiable as art.
Art also requires an audience to interpret it. Drug experiences are highly idiosyncratic, and no one is going to be able to read inspiration into what you might find inspiring about Satan telling you through a language of worms in your arms that you were once the king of a nonexistent country.
Art is communication. Communication needs to be understood. Weird art is weird, but it's weird in a way that is comprehensible and follows its own logic. Drug experiences do not. So it really bothers me when people see something that goes through the trouble of having that creativity, exhibiting those real and impactful aspects of art, but is weird so they just respond with "lol what drugs man"
Drugs do not do that.
Have a little respect for the artist.
