the psilocybin one was neat, could be more elaborate..
i've always seen streaming particles, but also morphing faces; mosaic themes

It seems that you are applying the scientific method to art, luckily in art there are no such rules!

(Please ignore this post, of which I am ashamed because it is completely anti-progressive)

You're right: Because I am a scientist, I am incapable of enjoying, appreciating, and creating art. Scientists are indeed cold, calculating robots whose lives are dedicated to analyzing the universe so that they can find better ways to destroy it. I have no right to contemplate art because imaginative and abstract thinking are forbidden within the rule-ridden cult of science.

I'm actually with the scientist on this one. I don't find any of this particularly compelling.

In the first place, I find his work to be uninspiring. In the second, who really gives a shit what substances a person ingests while creating their art? I think he's clearly set out to define each specific drug experience for the viewer through his own artistic rendering, but he brings his own personal biases and preconceptions of each to the table. The results (to me) are shallow, lazy and just make him look full of shit. Do you honestly believe this is how this guy sees himself on bath salts and antibiotics? 10mgs of adderall and he suddenly comes to embrace his inner rattlesnake? Give me a break. I just think that he's grandiose and a narcissicist, and his work is thoroughly mediocre.

His website says that he has done a self-portrait a day for something like the last 30 years. How self-involved do you have to be to make this your life's work? Next month he'll have a new series entitled Artist Eats Various Meats and Cheeses, Draws Self Portraits, and you'll all be sitting on the edge of your seats, waiting to see how his perceptions of self differ from ham to pastrami.

not all scientists are like that though, myself included.
art doesn't particularly have to have meaning, and there are no set procedures, no laws.
perhaps that is the compelling thing about it.

I do agree, this self-portrait project may be viewed as narcissistic...but it could also be interpreted as self-loathing.

I believe he was probably being a wee bit sarcastic, don't you think? I think he just didn't dig the work.

My idea of a perfect day is one spent wandering aimlessly through art museums, and I didn't dig it either. And I love art of all shapes and sizes... but crap is crap, and to me this is crap; self-obsessed, masturbatory crap.

Some of those are really interesting and skillfully made, and the idea of this is cool (altho it could have used alot more psychedelics), but after going through his website he gives out a sort of negative energy.. I don't know how to describe it really. Like he's an artist of the dark side..? Not that it matters, I mean art is art there is no "evil art", but just sayin..

I think that by definition, the narcissistic are self-loathing, same way that the arrogant are insecure.

As far as a more "scientific" approach- I agree that is the one thing that would have validated this work. Remove all variables but the chemical substance. Draw the same item, the same size, in the same medium, same tools, same lighting and materials... Same music even (or lack of). Make the substance the only major variable, then make a truly honest effort with your depictions. This would still be an artistic interpretation, but would be a far more valid (and compelling) comparison.

That is childish.


I agree on the fact that there is lots of narcissism involved, but it's hard to think of any famous and more skilled artist who wasnt obsessed with his own persona.

Plus, why you take it so seriously? Art is expression of both beauty and horror, just let it be.

Funnily enough, back in the academy I did some artworks following set rules and schedules that imitate the scientific approach. Nonetheless, I find funny that when you first come near his work that's what you imagine and then you realize that what he actually does is very messy and unscientific.

I agree with Art.

TBH, I like the art and I don't understand the hate-on for the concept of it at all. Many people do many more narcissistic things in their days and lives, and I don't think it's fair to draw conclusions about the mindset or personality of the artist through such an incredibly limited means of connection.

So he got high on a bunch of different pharms and did art, would it be better that he was watching TV? Or wandering around outside drooling and yelling at people? It's a completely sliding scale of comparison, maybe he's not contemplating enlightenment or wandering throughout the forest, but I really don't see how drawing himself on a variety of drugs with a variety of mediums is anything less than creative, silly and expressive.

Narcissism and self-loathing? Maybe hand in hand, and there is obviously depression laced throughout the art, but who isn't or hasn't been depressed? We all know art is a great form of self-expression.

Some people wipe their shit on a blank canvas and critics eat it up.

Aesthetically, I quite enjoy his style and ability to replicate different moods and feelings, there is a good ambience about it and I have absolutely no qualms with the fact that they are self-portraits. My ex lover who is attending art school told me that some philosopher or artist teacher or something once said that every piece of art is either a self portrait or a representation of the perfect lover.

I like it and I'm maybe just playing devils advocate for him, but I'm also not down with what seems to be unfounded hate-boners for good art simply because of the concept of it.

Self portraits doesn't mean he is narcissistic. Rembrandt wasn't a narcissist. It is simply viewung himself as a subject, a human or whatever. All he has done is choose himself to display the emotions based on his experiences imo. If he draws a self portrait every day it still doesn't mean he is narcissist, it's actually called a catalogue.

I don't have a "hate-boner", whatever the hell that means. I just don't care for the guy's work, and unlike some people here I don't really find the action of taking drugs in and of itself to be particularly artful. There's an assumption amongst a certain subset of our community that drugs imbue everything with a high degree of significance. I don't share this assumption. And your comment about drawing conclusions about his mindset and personality from his art is total knucklehead nonsense. If the art of an artist isn't a window into the artist's mindset and personality, they probably aren't either much of an artist or seek to tell the truth.

I think the mushroom drawing is the most interesting, but do slightly agree with Art Van's interpretation of him being "self obsessed". He's obviously obsessed with benzo's too... which actually give no artistic inspiration whatsoever (IMO).

The idea this guy had reminds me of an artist who was given LSD in the 50's as an experiment by the government and was asked to draw 9 self portraits during the experience. I love when he says "this pencil is hard to hold" but is holding a crayon during the 5th hour. He he

My favourite sketch is the when he's at the 2hr 45 min mark. So abstract and interesting and in my opinion much cooler than anything Bryan Lewis Saunders drew. Obviously different drugs and different people, but still... I'm comparing them anyways

Sorry to the OP if this is a thread hijack of sorts, but thought it was relevant nonetheless.

i was a bit discouraged by his many pieces themed on benzos and opiates, i thought that his mushroom piece was interesting and might offer some insight to his own psychedelic aesthetic however he seemed seriously "drawn" to go back to pills of a trivial and addicting nature.

Yes, and treating the number of drugs you have put in your body to be a sort of artistic pissing contest is also childish. This artist's work on drugs is clearly about quantity and NOT quality.