評論
打印
"But there is an airy spiritual component, too: a belief that anyone can be an artist and, ideally, everyone should be. "
但也出現(xiàn)了一種不切實際的思想成分：一種相信任何人都可以成為藝術(shù)家，并且理想情況下也應(yīng)該成為藝術(shù)家的信念。”
This is the principle behind much of the self-help “creativity” industry —
許多自助“創(chuàng)意”行業(yè)背后的原則就是：
the notion, promulgated in best-selling books like Elizabeth Gilbert’s “Big Magic: Creative Living Beyond Fear,”
伊麗莎白·吉爾伯特的《大魔法:超越恐懼的創(chuàng)造性生活》等暢銷書大力宣揚的那種，
that every person contains vast reservoirs of creative potential.
認(rèn)為每個人都蘊藏著巨大的創(chuàng)造潛能的信念。
To access your creativity, Gilbert maintains, is to self-actualize.
吉爾伯特認(rèn)為，發(fā)揮創(chuàng)造力就等于實現(xiàn)自我。
This, she writes, is “the central question upon which all creative living hinges:
她寫道，“所有創(chuàng)意生活依賴的核心問題都是:
Do you have the courage to bring forth the treasures that are hidden within you?”
你是否有勇氣把藏在你內(nèi)心深處的寶藏發(fā)揮出來?”
It’s hard not to be skeptical of a sentence like that.
不對這樣的話表示懷疑是很難的。
In fact, the sickly odor of snake oil hovers over much of the “creative living” enterprise.
事實上，許多專注“創(chuàng)意生活”的企業(yè)上方都籠罩著一股“萬靈油”般令人生厭的味道。
It may be no accident that one of the most forceful formulations of this thesis arrived in Jonah Lehrer’s “Imagine: How Creativity Works,”
她的這本著作中最具說服力的公式會出現(xiàn)在喬納·萊勒的著作《想象:創(chuàng)造力是如何運作的》一書里或許并非偶然——
the 2012 pop-neuroscience book that was recalled by its publisher, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt,
該書是出版于2012年的一本流行神經(jīng)科學(xué)書籍，在被發(fā)現(xiàn)含有鮑勃·迪倫引用萊勒自己的發(fā)明之后，
after it was discovered to contain Bob Dylan quotes of Lehrer’s own invention.
該書被其出版商霍頓·米夫林·哈考特召回。
The prosyletizers for creative living proffer a slippery hard sell:
創(chuàng)意生活的布道者們提供的其實是一種狡猾的硬性推銷：
You can tap into your creative side if you just learn how, preferably by buying this book or attending this workshop.
只要你購買這本書或參加這個研討會，你就能激發(fā)出你的創(chuàng)造力。
Of course, this egalitarian theory of creativity ignores everything we know about the apportionment of artistic gifts,
當(dāng)然，這種平等主義的創(chuàng)造性理論忽略了我們了解的關(guān)于藝術(shù)天賦分配的一切，
the fact that some people are simply better at making things than others.
也就是有些人就是比其他人更擅長制造東西這一事實。
It also elides the structural impediments — the lack of free time and ample resources and good education —
也排除了阻止了數(shù)百萬人追求折紙愛好，更不用說在創(chuàng)意領(lǐng)域找工作了的結(jié)構(gòu)性障礙：
that prohibit millions from pursuing an origami hobby, let alone finding a career in a creative field.
缺乏空閑時間，充足的資源以及良好的教育。
Faith in creativity can be especially robust among those blessed with talent.
相信自己有創(chuàng)造力的信念在那些有天賦的人身上尤其強烈。
Consider Kanye West.
坎耶·維斯特就是個例子。
There’s no doubting his creativity:
毫無疑問，他是有創(chuàng)造力的：
He makes great records, designs strange shoes, summons outrages from thin air.
他不僅創(chuàng)造了偉大的記錄，設(shè)計出了奇怪的鞋子，還能憑空激起人們的義憤。
He also maintains one of the world’s most arresting Twitter feeds,
他的推特也一直是世界上最引人注目的推特賬號之一，
where he boasts about his sneaker enterprise (“the creative make the final decisions here”)
他就是在那個賬號上吹噓他的運動鞋事業(yè)(“我的品牌最后都是有創(chuàng)意的人說了算”)，
and offers homilies to his peers: “As a creative your ideas are your strongest form of currency.”
向同行們布道：“作為一個創(chuàng)意品牌，想法就是你最有力的貨幣。”
In October, he took to Twitter to renounce his high-profile flirtation with Trumpism:
去年10月，他在推特上宣布放棄與特朗普主義的高調(diào)曖昧關(guān)系:
“I am distancing myself from politics and completely focusing on being creative!!”
“我正在遠離政治，將注意力全部集中在創(chuàng)新上!!”
譯文由可可原創(chuàng)，僅供學(xué)習(xí)交流使用，未經(jīng)許可請勿轉(zhuǎn)載。
