How did Wordsworth remember the Daffodils when oft on his couch did he lie? It must a pretty commonplace picture, the gentle slopes of the Lake valley ablaze with a carpet of delicate daffodils. Men and women, children and those at the brink of adulthood - with even more romantic inclinations - all must be witness to this wonder of nature. How is that all of them didn't remember it long after and pen down equally inspiring lines?
Is this thought just an excuse? Is it just the presence of a Muse that makes all the difference? In the case of Wordsworth, we assign that lofty position to Nature. For Shakespeare there may be a debate on who, but the existence of one is not debated. Our very own Gurudev who it is said could ascribe each burst of creativity to a new Muse. Is there any amount of control that can be exerted on being inspired in this manner? Or is it something that pulls at the strings and heedless of what one may consciously think or want, the work of art takes shape of it's own accord - just as some other basic instincts that most life on earth has to give into. Giving into some needs may be termed biological and brings Humans at the same level as any other animal - to be measured on the same scale. But this other kind of instinct, the one that forces Art to take form, does it then lift the same species to another height, a little step closer to the Creator of all this?
Love da way you write!
ReplyDeletewordsworth never saw the daffodils...one theory argues that his sister had described these in a letter she was writing and he chanced upon the letter and wrote (got inspired, copied?)
ReplyDeletebut yes, how does one explain the creativity muse?
dont know if it gets us a step closer to the creator, but, in my understanding, it allows us to disburden some of our thoughts/senses/views on matter (paper, computer screen, clay, easel, and ultimately other minds) besides ourselves...is lightening of burden creativity and a step closer to the creator? don't know. Can only speculate