`Ingemar Lindh: Creativity versus Life`

"AND therefore I think that the only reason we are here [...] on this Earth, is to be creative."

THURSDAY June 26th 1997 the internationally respected theatre master Ingemar Lindh died from sudden heart failure. His last public speech was at the theatre festival a Summernight's Dream in Porsgrunn, Norway, three weeks earlier. His main topic for the occasion was the human compulsion for being creative, seen in contexts of the individual and society.

INGEMAR LINDH, Porsgrunn, June 5th 1997:

"There is a kind of general agreement: Humanity raise up in the morning, and those who does not, seem to be odd. And then they start to do movements. Activities. Moving around. Which is the base of theatre, and is an element in all human activity.

Then I ask myself, moving around, doing things, more or less specific, is that for the thing I should do, or is it for myself, or can it be both. And then there are always big quarrels, whether one is altruistic, doing too much for the others, or egoistic, doing too much for oneself.

But those are the means whereby we have, for evolution -- moving towards, forwards, upwards: Doing simple things. And they must serve a purpose. They can't only serve, as purpose, the thing I want to do. Because, the thing I want to do, I want it to serve a purpose. So already the first move I do, must serve a purpose."

"I thought of speaking about some small things today, like creativity versus art, science, and spirituality. Just for a little start." Audience chuckles. "It is an aspect that has been forgotten, perhaps, where efficiency, on the first level, seem to be a way of identifying myself, and create my identity in society, and also in front of myself. 'What am I doing?' And much less: 'How am I doing it?' and 'For what purpose?'

Jonathan (is he here?) he told me a very nice story yesterday. There was a conference in America, I don't go into the details; where, and when, and why... New Age people, about spirituality, and whatever. Healing, holistic, all the clichés. And of course, all the freaks where there, hanging around, waiting for enlightenment. And then, back somewhere in the audience, there were an old lady in the more traditional costume. Which means very punk, black probably, and strange needles here and there. Very punk -- totally traditional uniform.

And then, of course, everybody was very curious afterwards - if she liked this conference - what could she get out of it? And she said: 'Yeah... yeah... I liked it very much.' 'Oh. But are you practising yourself some spiritual activity, or exercises?' 'Yes, yes,' she said, 'I'm knitting. I'm doing crochet.' That was the answer.

Every move I do in my life, I can carry it towards something, or I let it carry me to its something. If not, its nonsense. Whether I do this for the others, or for myself, is not so interesting. I think that, by nature, we are generous egoists. And whatever we do, we do it for ourselves, but we have a kind of fundamental need of sharing it.

And therefore I think that the only reason we are here - not here, because that is very suspect - but on this Earth, is to be creative. To create. But then when we say create we always expect touchable, visible result. And when the concrete becomes untouchable, we call it para-something. Para-natural, or para-psychical, or whatever.

And of course, its not scientific at all. You can't measure it. Creativity does not really have one form, and surely not one shape. As all the fundaments in life - hate, love, anger, tenderness, loneliness - everything we put as something fundamentally valuable, has no one form. It will take a form. It will manifest itself through a form, as everything. When the form remain, and it loose its content, it's only the shape that remains. Which means the image of the form, without its content."

"ART is one form, or several forms,... multiple forms of being creative. But also the baker, the matador, even the slaughter can be creative. But for that, they don't need to be artists. That was the big trauma when I started with theatre. The theatre was, should be, the clue for everything. One should have theatre in school, theatre in hospitals, theatre here for handicapped, theatre for deaf, blind, theatre for I don't know what. Anything... Theatre should be education, it should be a kind of hobby, it should be a profession, everything. So I grew up without seeing any performances, because I was normal. There were no performances for normal people." Laughs from the audience.

"I tried to go to prison, but they didn't let me in - . . . to have at least one touch of fundamental cultural education." More laughs.

"And, of course, it created a kind of neurosis. Because, art immediately, say,. . . You have the value. Not only the ethical value, but as we are brilliant at transforming things, from essence to the image of the essence, it became the moral of it. Which means that you could be a bad or a good artist. And unfortunately most of the people discovered that they were bad artists. And so that creation that was the source for the eventual probable or possible happiness, vanished. Because they immediately discovered that they were not Picasso. And this always happen when the aspiration on the image level is bigger than what I can produce. There will be a deception.

That does not mean that good and bad art doesn't exist. But creativity can manifest itself through painting, music, theatre, whatever. Without necessarily having to take the step over to be art. Art is another level of responsibility. It's another decision."

"IT'S not necessary that when I speak with theatre people, that I have more to exchange than with other people, or with musicians, or painters, or poets, or bakers. Because we do not necessarily have the same aspirations with how to use, and for what, and why we do theatre.

But when I decide that that activity should also be my profession, not in the sense of having a salary of course. This is more than a legend about this occupation: Fortunately an actor cannot be disoccupied. He can be without salary, but not disoccupied. And this is the difference. And when I decide it is my profession, which means it is my path, my way, it's through that specific activity I will develop my own talents. The risk is always that we forget the other talents. Because it's not enough to be the best musician in the world, in order to be a healthy person. There are too many talents that we have to develop, we are not one-dimensional.

But we choose one focus through which we try to understand the world. And through which we try to focus and filter all our knowing. Knowing, what is that? Knowing is the part of awareness that I cannot share with anybody else. I do not say that it is. . . Knowing is not subjective as phenomenon. It's objective, because we know that the others can know, and we know that it is possible to know. Therefore I know that the others also know, but I will never know what they know. And how they know it. And we must in a way accept to remain in that kind of solitude. I know that what I know, I will be alone with that.

But that solitude is not the same as loneliness. It will be the source of everything I manifest, to share with other people. Share in the sense of exposing to the others. Because then they will perceive it through their knowing, and then it's not mine any longer. And because it is not in possession of anybody it's free like the air. Fortunately nobody really possess the air, or own the air."

"OF course we do this through things that are very material - that's been called materialism for some reason - which means something that seems to be necessary. And we ever had, for a long time, a basic philosophy called -- kind of -ism, started perhaps as a philosophy, and then it became an -ism -- they called it Marxism.

(I don't know. I have seen all the films, but it looks more like anarchy for me, when I see them. But its perhaps another brother. . . Karl.)

But I think it was a catastrophe, in the real sense of the word, in the Marxism, and that was not having considered the necessity for luxury. When you speak about: 'We should only have what is necessary, what we need' -- how do we know what is luxury for one, and not for the other. How do we know where luxury start. Does it start with the second potato, or with the third potato? Or if I only have one potato and a candle, which one is luxury? If I have a glass of beer, and no potato, and a candle, where does luxury start, and when? Is it caressing somebody once, or twice? I don't know.

But it's only the one I can touch, that seems necessary. The other one is not filling me with something that medicine can measure - the candle. So it's not necessary. But unfortunately it is indispensable. But on another level.

And if we don't find the balance between those two necessities, the material and the etheric, or spiritual if you want, we are not fulfilling our basic needs for creativity. And why should we eat if we are not creative?"

"HOPEFULLY there will be this going towards other values now. Not that the world will change, or go through another revolution. But through another evolution. Of course there are fundamental contradictions. Because if we speak about material contra non-touchable or non-visible values, we are speaking about economy. Some economists think, hope, that they will be able to reconcile economy with creativity. Perhaps it is possible. But I think that the contradiction in the contemporary society is too big. Because what I need to be creative has a price. And that price can only be paid by myself.

If I try, or I need, that somebody else pay this price, I break the first ethic rule. Perhaps the only one. Not willingly hurt somebody else. But if somebody else have to work in order to make it possible for me to do my activity, then there is something fundamentally wrong.

Would it be possible to create a society based on the fact that everybody does what is indispensable for them - to grow, to be creative - and yet produce what is necessary for all of us? It's a thrilling question. I don't know if we can have an answer today."

Replies to questions and comments from the audience after the main speech:

[ Entrance | The Meaning and Nature of Art | Update history ]