What do you think?
Rate this book
Create Dangerously: The Power and Responsibility of the Artist
“To create today means to create dangerously. Every publication is a deliberate act, and that act makes us vulnerable to the passions of a century that forgives nothing.”
In 1957, Nobel Prize-winning philosopher Albert Camus gave a speech entitled "Create Dangerously," effectively a call to arms for artists, in particular those who came from an immigrant background, like he did. Camus understood the necessity of those making art as a part of civil society. A bold cry for artistic freedom and responsibility, his words today remain as timely as ever. In this new translation, Camus's message, available as a stand-alone little book for the first time, will resonate with a new generation of writers and artists.
In 1957, Nobel Prize-winning philosopher Albert Camus gave a speech entitled "Create Dangerously," effectively a call to arms for artists, in particular those who came from an immigrant background, like he did. Camus understood the necessity of those making art as a part of civil society. A bold cry for artistic freedom and responsibility, his words today remain as timely as ever. In this new translation, Camus's message, available as a stand-alone little book for the first time, will resonate with a new generation of writers and artists.
64 pages, Paperback
First published December 14, 1957
416 people are currently reading
8184 people want to read
About the author
Albert Camus
1,085 books37.3k followersWorks, such as the novels
The Stranger
(1942) and
The Plague
(1947), of Algerian-born French writer and philosopher Albert Camus concern the absurdity of the human condition; he won the Nobel Prize of 1957 for literature.
Origin and his experiences of this representative of non-metropolitan literature in the 1930s dominated influences in his thought and work.
He also adapted plays of Pedro Calderón de la Barca, Lope de Vega, Dino Buzzati, and Requiem for a Nun of William Faulkner. One may trace his enjoyment of the theater back to his membership in l'Equipe, an Algerian group, whose "collective creation" Révolte dans les Asturies (1934) was banned for political reasons.
Of semi-proletarian parents, early attached to intellectual circles of strongly revolutionary tendencies, with a deep interest, he came at the age of 25 years in 1938; only chance prevented him from pursuing a university career in that field. The man and the times met: Camus joined the resistance movement during the occupation and after the liberation served as a columnist for the newspaper Combat.
The essay Le Mythe de Sisyphe (The Myth of Sisyphus), 1942, expounds notion of acceptance of the absurd of Camus with "the total absence of hope, which has nothing to do with despair, a continual refusal, which must not be confused with renouncement - and a conscious dissatisfaction."
Meursault, central character of L'Étranger (The Stranger), 1942, illustrates much of this essay: man as the nauseated victim of the absurd orthodoxy of habit, later - when the young killer faces execution - tempted by despair, hope, and salvation.
Besides his fiction and essays, Camus very actively produced plays in the theater (e.g., Caligula, 1944).
The time demanded his response, chiefly in his activities, but in 1947, Camus retired from political journalism.
Doctor Rieux of La Peste (The Plague), 1947, who tirelessly attends the plague-stricken citizens of Oran, enacts the revolt against a world of the absurd and of injustice, and confirms words: "We refuse to despair of mankind. Without having the unreasonable ambition to save men, we still want to serve them."
People also well know La Chute (The Fall), work of Camus in 1956.
Camus authored L'Exil et le royaume (Exile and the Kingdom) in 1957. His austere search for moral order found its aesthetic correlative in the classicism of his art. He styled of great purity, intense concentration, and rationality.
Camus died at the age of 46 years in a car accident near Sens in le Grand Fossard in the small town of Villeblevin.
Chinese 阿尔贝·加缪
Origin and his experiences of this representative of non-metropolitan literature in the 1930s dominated influences in his thought and work.
He also adapted plays of Pedro Calderón de la Barca, Lope de Vega, Dino Buzzati, and Requiem for a Nun of William Faulkner. One may trace his enjoyment of the theater back to his membership in l'Equipe, an Algerian group, whose "collective creation" Révolte dans les Asturies (1934) was banned for political reasons.
Of semi-proletarian parents, early attached to intellectual circles of strongly revolutionary tendencies, with a deep interest, he came at the age of 25 years in 1938; only chance prevented him from pursuing a university career in that field. The man and the times met: Camus joined the resistance movement during the occupation and after the liberation served as a columnist for the newspaper Combat.
The essay Le Mythe de Sisyphe (The Myth of Sisyphus), 1942, expounds notion of acceptance of the absurd of Camus with "the total absence of hope, which has nothing to do with despair, a continual refusal, which must not be confused with renouncement - and a conscious dissatisfaction."
Meursault, central character of L'Étranger (The Stranger), 1942, illustrates much of this essay: man as the nauseated victim of the absurd orthodoxy of habit, later - when the young killer faces execution - tempted by despair, hope, and salvation.
Besides his fiction and essays, Camus very actively produced plays in the theater (e.g., Caligula, 1944).
The time demanded his response, chiefly in his activities, but in 1947, Camus retired from political journalism.
Doctor Rieux of La Peste (The Plague), 1947, who tirelessly attends the plague-stricken citizens of Oran, enacts the revolt against a world of the absurd and of injustice, and confirms words: "We refuse to despair of mankind. Without having the unreasonable ambition to save men, we still want to serve them."
People also well know La Chute (The Fall), work of Camus in 1956.
Camus authored L'Exil et le royaume (Exile and the Kingdom) in 1957. His austere search for moral order found its aesthetic correlative in the classicism of his art. He styled of great purity, intense concentration, and rationality.
Camus died at the age of 46 years in a car accident near Sens in le Grand Fossard in the small town of Villeblevin.
Chinese 阿尔贝·加缪
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 698 reviews
March 14, 2019
Camus at his finest!
An artist cannot be a political or religious zealot promoting absolute values. It is the artist's main vision to create understanding. That is the credo of art in the age of conformism and entertainment. Dare be yourself. Dare challenge popularity for the benefit of the siblings freedom and justice. Conquer art by not dividing those two.
Create dangerously!
An artist cannot be a political or religious zealot promoting absolute values. It is the artist's main vision to create understanding. That is the credo of art in the age of conformism and entertainment. Dare be yourself. Dare challenge popularity for the benefit of the siblings freedom and justice. Conquer art by not dividing those two.
Create dangerously!
April 3, 2020
I honestly have no idea what he’s talking about anymore and I’m that’s defo not just because isolation has turned my brain to mush
April 26, 2022
Camus always makes me think hard and these essays put my brain into overdrive. The title essay, "Create Dangerously" was written in the 1950s in a time when artists were recovering from the threat of fascism and facing the restriction of the Soviet Union's social realism edicts. I read the essay (twice) through the lens of 2022. Every day I hear about more books being banned in schools by the right wing. And on the other end of the political spectrum, yesterday I read Pamela Paul's piece in the New York Times about the right of artists to create what they have not experienced, ("The Limits of Lived Experience" https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/24/op...). So I think Camus' words are very apt today.
The question for all of those who cannot live without art and what it signifies, is merely to find out how among the police forces of so many ideologies the strange liberty of creation is possible.
Penguin Modern Classics
#1 - Letter from Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King, Jr.
#2 - Television Was a Baby Crawling Toward That Deathchamber by Allen Ginsberg
#3 - The Breakthrough by Daphne Du Maurier
#4 - The Custard Heart by Dorothy Parker
#5 - Three Japanese Short Stories (3 authors)
#6 - The Veiled Woman by Anais Nin
#7 - Notes on Nationalism by George Orwell
#8 - Food by Gertrude Stein
#9 - The Three Electroknights by Stanislaw Lem
#10 - The Great Hunger by Patrick Kavanagh
#11 - The Legend of the Sleepers by Danilo Kis
#12 - The Black Ball by Ralph Ellison
#13 - Till September Petronella by Jean Rhys
#14 - Investigations of a Dog by Franz Kafka
#15 - Daydream and Drunkenness of a Young Lady by Clarice Lispector
#16 - An Advertisement for Toothpaste by Ryszard Kapuscinski
#17 - Create Dangerously by Albert Camus
The question for all of those who cannot live without art and what it signifies, is merely to find out how among the police forces of so many ideologies the strange liberty of creation is possible.
Penguin Modern Classics
#1 - Letter from Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King, Jr.
#2 - Television Was a Baby Crawling Toward That Deathchamber by Allen Ginsberg
#3 - The Breakthrough by Daphne Du Maurier
#4 - The Custard Heart by Dorothy Parker
#5 - Three Japanese Short Stories (3 authors)
#6 - The Veiled Woman by Anais Nin
#7 - Notes on Nationalism by George Orwell
#8 - Food by Gertrude Stein
#9 - The Three Electroknights by Stanislaw Lem
#10 - The Great Hunger by Patrick Kavanagh
#11 - The Legend of the Sleepers by Danilo Kis
#12 - The Black Ball by Ralph Ellison
#13 - Till September Petronella by Jean Rhys
#14 - Investigations of a Dog by Franz Kafka
#15 - Daydream and Drunkenness of a Young Lady by Clarice Lispector
#16 - An Advertisement for Toothpaste by Ryszard Kapuscinski
#17 - Create Dangerously by Albert Camus
August 23, 2018
Albert Camus is the only Existentialist I can bear.
You know why? Because he was honest. He had opinions based on reality as it is and lived according to them instead of preaching despair while cheerfully piling up money and fame like his most honourable colleagues.
("Blasphemavit! Rea est mortis!" Well, it's my opinion, folks.)
In these three essays/scholarly lectures Camus discusses the part played by artists and intellectuals in the 20th century. In so doing, the Nobel prize winner makes some very clever remarks regarding the attitude of society toward art and creativeness.
1) CREATE DANGEROUSLY - University of Uppsala, 1957
"Today everything is changed and even silence has dangerous implications. To create today is to create dangerously. Any publication is an act, and that act exposes one to the passions of an age that forgives nothing. The question is how, among the police forces of so many ideologies, the strange liberty of creation is possible."
Camus is deeply concerned about the tormented relationship between the artist/writer and the public, that is, the society in which he lives. Because the art of nowadays must deal with the masses. It must accept to be either engaged in some kind of historical commitment or corrupt by popularisation, a choice the old masters had always been spared until the middle class prevailed and culture became accessible to the masses. Artistic isolation is not possible anymore; the maddening crowd is now a reality to be reckoned with:
"We know now that they exist, because the masses have become stronger and keep people from forgetting them."
Camus is not blinded by any ideological faith though, because "For the artist there are no privileged torturers."
He's perfectly aware of the implications of the so-called Socialistic Realism of his time, a delusional attempt to depict a 'leftist' reality that inevitably became mere propaganda: the masses were to be portrayed only as the ideal masses of the red utopia, and the writer's grasp on reality could only be focused on the future - that is, on the non-existent.
What we need today is, according to Camus, a creativity that is aware of its own potential. Today's art is threatened by a dangerous lack of contact with the physical and emotional reality of life.
"We live in a society that is not even the society of money but that of the abstract symbols of money. The society of merchants can be defined as a society in which things disappear in favour of signs." In such an artificial environment art is mere entertainment; there are no artists in the first place, only 'manufacturers of art'. Hence Camus' despise for the concept of 'Art for Art's sake', which is seen as proof of the modern artist's moral irresponsibility.
On the other hand, there's a tendency to be 'against' everything for the sake of it:
"Many artists long to be exceptional, feel guilty if they are not, and wish for simultaneous applause and hisses."
Camus' vision is hardly the bleak, depressing cliché of so many existentialists. He forwards an ideal concept of art as an achievement of all mankind throughout history, a common endeavour and a common task of both writers and readers. "Every man, on the foundation of his own suffering and joys, builds for all."
This may not be the core of Existentialism, but it certainly is the core of Existence.
2) DEFENSE OF INTELLIGENCE - L'Amitié Française, 1945
A 10-minute speech about the social and political climate of 1945 France, a country that had just started to cure its wounds and come to terms with its recent tragedies.
"The last and most long-lived victory of Hitlerism is to be found in the shameful scars made on the hearts of those who fought it most vigorously."
In order to overcome the hatred and tension left behind by the war, Camus says, any desire for revenge must be put aside once and for all. Only a new political mentality can lead to a new start and a real change, in which there are neither partisans nor collaborators anymore.
What determined the fall of European civilisation and the ascent of barbaric dictatorships was the lack of respect for intelligence and intellectuals, who had been conveniently used as a scapegoat - or an enemy - by most governments. "The war came and then the defeat. The main responsibility lay with the intelligence. Our peasants had read too much Proust", Camus points out, and not ironically at all: those were widespread opinions, shrewdly exploited by monarchs and statesmen before and during the conflict. What he asks to the public (mostly young students) is "not to give in to guile, to violence, to inertia" whenever intelligence becomes unwelcome: that's the moment it must be most cherished, precisely because it's dangerous.
3) BREAD AND FREEDOM - Labour Exchange of Saint-Étienne, 1953
A critique of the exploitation of freedom, shamelessly betrayed by the Soviet Revolution and often seen by the western government as an annoying 'inconvenience' of democracy. Once again indeed, Camus' thought is not influenced by any political faction:
"If freedom is regressing today throughout such a large part of the world, this is probably because the devices for enslavement have never been so cynically chosen or so effective."
The point is: human freedom and justice are one and the same thing. No justice can do without intellectual freedom and no freedom can do without social justice, which obviously entails the economic and political. We can't discern between the two, unless only a few privileged ones are to enjoy them.
This speech also shows the most unexpectedly, delightfully optimistic Camus, eventually suggesting a universal brotherhood between the intellectual and the worker as their only chance to fight back whenever their freedom is in danger.
" Freedom is not a gift received from a State or a leader but a possession to be won every day by the effort of each and the union of all".
Ça ira!
You know why? Because he was honest. He had opinions based on reality as it is and lived according to them instead of preaching despair while cheerfully piling up money and fame like his most honourable colleagues.
("Blasphemavit! Rea est mortis!" Well, it's my opinion, folks.)
In these three essays/scholarly lectures Camus discusses the part played by artists and intellectuals in the 20th century. In so doing, the Nobel prize winner makes some very clever remarks regarding the attitude of society toward art and creativeness.
1) CREATE DANGEROUSLY - University of Uppsala, 1957
"Today everything is changed and even silence has dangerous implications. To create today is to create dangerously. Any publication is an act, and that act exposes one to the passions of an age that forgives nothing. The question is how, among the police forces of so many ideologies, the strange liberty of creation is possible."
Camus is deeply concerned about the tormented relationship between the artist/writer and the public, that is, the society in which he lives. Because the art of nowadays must deal with the masses. It must accept to be either engaged in some kind of historical commitment or corrupt by popularisation, a choice the old masters had always been spared until the middle class prevailed and culture became accessible to the masses. Artistic isolation is not possible anymore; the maddening crowd is now a reality to be reckoned with:
"We know now that they exist, because the masses have become stronger and keep people from forgetting them."
Camus is not blinded by any ideological faith though, because "For the artist there are no privileged torturers."
He's perfectly aware of the implications of the so-called Socialistic Realism of his time, a delusional attempt to depict a 'leftist' reality that inevitably became mere propaganda: the masses were to be portrayed only as the ideal masses of the red utopia, and the writer's grasp on reality could only be focused on the future - that is, on the non-existent.
What we need today is, according to Camus, a creativity that is aware of its own potential. Today's art is threatened by a dangerous lack of contact with the physical and emotional reality of life.
"We live in a society that is not even the society of money but that of the abstract symbols of money. The society of merchants can be defined as a society in which things disappear in favour of signs." In such an artificial environment art is mere entertainment; there are no artists in the first place, only 'manufacturers of art'. Hence Camus' despise for the concept of 'Art for Art's sake', which is seen as proof of the modern artist's moral irresponsibility.
On the other hand, there's a tendency to be 'against' everything for the sake of it:
"Many artists long to be exceptional, feel guilty if they are not, and wish for simultaneous applause and hisses."
Camus' vision is hardly the bleak, depressing cliché of so many existentialists. He forwards an ideal concept of art as an achievement of all mankind throughout history, a common endeavour and a common task of both writers and readers. "Every man, on the foundation of his own suffering and joys, builds for all."
This may not be the core of Existentialism, but it certainly is the core of Existence.
2) DEFENSE OF INTELLIGENCE - L'Amitié Française, 1945
A 10-minute speech about the social and political climate of 1945 France, a country that had just started to cure its wounds and come to terms with its recent tragedies.
"The last and most long-lived victory of Hitlerism is to be found in the shameful scars made on the hearts of those who fought it most vigorously."
In order to overcome the hatred and tension left behind by the war, Camus says, any desire for revenge must be put aside once and for all. Only a new political mentality can lead to a new start and a real change, in which there are neither partisans nor collaborators anymore.
What determined the fall of European civilisation and the ascent of barbaric dictatorships was the lack of respect for intelligence and intellectuals, who had been conveniently used as a scapegoat - or an enemy - by most governments. "The war came and then the defeat. The main responsibility lay with the intelligence. Our peasants had read too much Proust", Camus points out, and not ironically at all: those were widespread opinions, shrewdly exploited by monarchs and statesmen before and during the conflict. What he asks to the public (mostly young students) is "not to give in to guile, to violence, to inertia" whenever intelligence becomes unwelcome: that's the moment it must be most cherished, precisely because it's dangerous.
3) BREAD AND FREEDOM - Labour Exchange of Saint-Étienne, 1953
A critique of the exploitation of freedom, shamelessly betrayed by the Soviet Revolution and often seen by the western government as an annoying 'inconvenience' of democracy. Once again indeed, Camus' thought is not influenced by any political faction:
"If freedom is regressing today throughout such a large part of the world, this is probably because the devices for enslavement have never been so cynically chosen or so effective."
The point is: human freedom and justice are one and the same thing. No justice can do without intellectual freedom and no freedom can do without social justice, which obviously entails the economic and political. We can't discern between the two, unless only a few privileged ones are to enjoy them.
This speech also shows the most unexpectedly, delightfully optimistic Camus, eventually suggesting a universal brotherhood between the intellectual and the worker as their only chance to fight back whenever their freedom is in danger.
" Freedom is not a gift received from a State or a leader but a possession to be won every day by the effort of each and the union of all".
Ça ira!
March 31, 2024
i love a theoretical spiral
Read
April 14, 2024Aux armes, écrivains et artistes ! C'est en somme l'essai de Camus - un appel aux " armes ", pour les écrivains et artistes, les exhortant à créer des œuvres qui remettent en question le statu quo et reflètent leurs perspectives uniques, peu importe à quel point ces perspectives peuvent être impopulaires ou dangereuses. Camus soutient que toute forme d'art est créé sous un certain niveau de risque et de danger - que ce soit le danger de la censure ou de la répression, ou le risque d'être mal compris ou détesté par les publics. Au lieu de fuir ce danger, Camus exhorte les artistes à l'embrasser et à l'utiliser pour stimuler leur travail créatif.
T'as raison, Stranger. Écrire, c'est lutter contre la peur, contre la doute, contre la critique, contre la censure. C'est avoir le courage de mettre ses idées à nu, même lorsqu'on sait que cela peut nous mettre en danger. Mais c'est aussi la meilleure façon de créer quelque chose de vraiment authentique, qui peut changer les mentalités et inspirer les autres à agir.
Écrire, c'est finalement révéler l'universel à travers le prisme de l'intime, c'est toucher à l'essence même de ce qui nous rends humains, et pourtant, dans chaque point final il y a la promesse d'un nouveau commencement, car l'histoire de l'humanité est un histoire qui ne cesse jamais d'être écrite.
T'as raison, Stranger. Écrire, c'est lutter contre la peur, contre la doute, contre la critique, contre la censure. C'est avoir le courage de mettre ses idées à nu, même lorsqu'on sait que cela peut nous mettre en danger. Mais c'est aussi la meilleure façon de créer quelque chose de vraiment authentique, qui peut changer les mentalités et inspirer les autres à agir.
Écrire, c'est finalement révéler l'universel à travers le prisme de l'intime, c'est toucher à l'essence même de ce qui nous rends humains, et pourtant, dans chaque point final il y a la promesse d'un nouveau commencement, car l'histoire de l'humanité est un histoire qui ne cesse jamais d'être écrite.
August 5, 2019
I read this one on a plane and it was a very quick and interesting read. It contains three speeches by Camus. The author explores the responsibility that the artist has to take a stand and not to be in silence. The artist has the responsibility to create dangerously.
I also really enjoyed the speech about freedom.
I also really enjoyed the speech about freedom.
October 9, 2025
Albert Camus' Speeches on Freedom
A review of the Penguin Modern paperback (2018) of speeches/essays translated by Justin O'Brien selected from the collection Resistance, Rebellion and Death: Essays (1960).
Somehow I found these speeches to be uncannily prescient of today's world even though they were written and delivered in the years 1945 to 1957. The overall message is of the artist's calling to speak out in place of the voices which are suppressed. This is equally applicable to those living under autocratic regimes of both Left and Right.
Penguin Modern's Create Dangerously contains 3 speeches delivered by Albert Camus at 3 different events and times:
1. Create Dangerously (originally delivered at the University of Uppsala, Sweden December 1957 a few days after receiving the Nobel Prize for Literature, published 1958)
2. Defense of Intelligence (originally delivered at the L'Amitie Francais, March 1945, published 1950)
3. Bread and Freedom (originally delivered at the Labour Exchange of Freedom, Sainte-Etienne, May 1953, published 1953)
You can read selected quotes from the speeches at my status updates below or here if you are reading outside of Goodreads.
As per usual with these Penguin Modern excerpts there is no Introduction or Afterword to provide context aside from listing the locations and dates of the speeches. The publishing information was also sparse, giving only the dates of the original French publications. I was able to deduce the source book of the English translations by Justin O'Brien by searching through his catalogue.
Trivia and Links
The speech Defense of Intelligence contains the following misattributed quote:
A review of the Penguin Modern paperback (2018) of speeches/essays translated by Justin O'Brien selected from the collection Resistance, Rebellion and Death: Essays (1960).
Somehow I found these speeches to be uncannily prescient of today's world even though they were written and delivered in the years 1945 to 1957. The overall message is of the artist's calling to speak out in place of the voices which are suppressed. This is equally applicable to those living under autocratic regimes of both Left and Right.
Penguin Modern's Create Dangerously contains 3 speeches delivered by Albert Camus at 3 different events and times:
1. Create Dangerously (originally delivered at the University of Uppsala, Sweden December 1957 a few days after receiving the Nobel Prize for Literature, published 1958)
2. Defense of Intelligence (originally delivered at the L'Amitie Francais, March 1945, published 1950)
3. Bread and Freedom (originally delivered at the Labour Exchange of Freedom, Sainte-Etienne, May 1953, published 1953)
You can read selected quotes from the speeches at my status updates below or here if you are reading outside of Goodreads.
As per usual with these Penguin Modern excerpts there is no Introduction or Afterword to provide context aside from listing the locations and dates of the speeches. The publishing information was also sparse, giving only the dates of the original French publications. I was able to deduce the source book of the English translations by Justin O'Brien by searching through his catalogue.
Trivia and Links
The speech Defense of Intelligence contains the following misattributed quote:
Goering gave a fair idea of their philosophy by declaring: 'When anyone talks to me of intelligence, I take out my revolver.'This has been attributed to other Nazi leaders as well as Josef Stalin in Communist Russia. All of those are misattributions. The original is from a 1933 play Schlageter by Nazi dramatist Hanns Johst where the quote is:
‘Wenn ich Kultur höre… entsichere ich meinen Browning!" (Whenever I hear the word culture ... I release the safety-catch of my Browning!)
May 13, 2019
"perhaps the greatness of Art lies in the perpetual tension between beauty and pain, the love of men and the madness of creation, unbearable solitude and the exhausting crowd, rejection and consent. Art advances between two chasms, which are frivolity and propaganda."
★★★★★ marvellous stars.
insightful, thorough, and concise. I didn't agree with everything (especially the socialism part) but Camus managed to be coherent on an intricate subject in just 30 pages. I recommend this to everyone who's interested in Art and who wants to branch out into the essay genre but is intimidated by it. Create Dangerously is quick and easy to understand so don't be too shy to read!
"many of our artists long to be exceptional, feel guilty if they are not, and wish for simultaneous applause and hisses."
★★★★★ marvellous stars.
insightful, thorough, and concise. I didn't agree with everything (especially the socialism part) but Camus managed to be coherent on an intricate subject in just 30 pages. I recommend this to everyone who's interested in Art and who wants to branch out into the essay genre but is intimidated by it. Create Dangerously is quick and easy to understand so don't be too shy to read!
"many of our artists long to be exceptional, feel guilty if they are not, and wish for simultaneous applause and hisses."
June 14, 2023
I feel like I need to re-read it. Even though the speech was written in 1958, every subject felt so relevant in today's world. I was surprised by the topics covered: propaganda, consumer society and different social statuses. I definitely need to re-read it.
July 16, 2018
In Create Dangerously, French-Algerian author Albert Camus 'argues passionately that the artist has a responsibility to challenge, provoke and speak up for those who cannot'. This 'powerful speech' has been accompanied by two other pieces, which were also delivered orally, entitled 'Defences of Intelligence' and 'Bread and Freedom'. The speeches were delivered between 1945 and 1957.
In 'Create Dangerously', Camus says, in rather a poignant manner: 'In any case, our era forces us to take an interest in it. The writers of today know this. If they speak up, they are criticized and attacked. If they become modest and keep silent, they are vociferously blamed for their silence.' The three speeches collected here, the style of which is quite similar, are intelligent, fascinating, and well-informed. They are filled with thoughtful ideas and discussion pieces. It seems fitting, in our current tumultuous global climate, to end with the following quote, taken from 'Bread and Freedom': '... we shall henceforth be sure... that freedom is not a gift received from a State or a leader but a possession to be won every day by the effort of each and the union of all.'
In 'Create Dangerously', Camus says, in rather a poignant manner: 'In any case, our era forces us to take an interest in it. The writers of today know this. If they speak up, they are criticized and attacked. If they become modest and keep silent, they are vociferously blamed for their silence.' The three speeches collected here, the style of which is quite similar, are intelligent, fascinating, and well-informed. They are filled with thoughtful ideas and discussion pieces. It seems fitting, in our current tumultuous global climate, to end with the following quote, taken from 'Bread and Freedom': '... we shall henceforth be sure... that freedom is not a gift received from a State or a leader but a possession to be won every day by the effort of each and the union of all.'
March 24, 2023
i liked the way camus expressed his ideas, it was refreshing to read. the book contained 3 speeches, the first one was my favourite, it talked about how artists have a responsibility to create dangerously and that art 'maintains an equilibrium between reality and man's rejection of that reality, each forcing the other upward in a ceaseless overflowing, characteristic of life itself at its most joyous and heart-rending extremes.' there were also references to WW2, seeing it was written a couple of years after the war ended and i liked the quote "...freedom is not founded on concentration camps, or on the subjugated peoples of the colonies or on the worker's poverty...freedom...[is] a possession to be won everyday by the effort of each and the union of all." also in his first speech/essay -create dangerously - he mentions that 'the reality of a man's life is not limited to the spot in which he happens to be. it lies also in other lives that give shape to his..." which i found so beautiful and insightful because we're like a collage of everyone we've loved, met, or been influenced by and this quote reinforced that idea which ngl is kinda pretty to think about.
August 8, 2018
While these writings may seem dated there are many views and ideas that still apply today. In particular is the comment on intelligence and labour of which he describes as the two things a society needs to survive.
An interesting read.
An interesting read.
February 8, 2021
3/5
Beaucoup de bonnes idées séparées, mais le discours était généralement ennuyeux.
Beaucoup de bonnes idées séparées, mais le discours était généralement ennuyeux.
December 28, 2021
This is a stirring little book — really more of a pamphlet — in the righteous spirit of Thomas Paine's Common Sense and even something like Martin Luther's Ninety-five Theses. Camus, as always, writes with clear-eyed moral fortitude, arguing that the responsibility of an artist is to create a shared understanding and to reject commercialization and agendas. He concedes that art sometimes can be inherently political. When that is the case, the artist must strive toward justice, for "when justice exists, in a future that is still unknown, art will be reborn," (p 27).
Camus makes a point of emphasizing that art should not inflame or incite, that art is inserting itself into a fragile world and that the responsibility of the artist extends to minimizing violent or dominating effects. "Brutality is never temporary," (p 28) Camus bluntly puts it. This point is a clear illustration of the foundational difference that drove Camus and Sartre apart, with Sartre taking the view that brutal and violent revolution may be necessary in the service of building a just (communist) society.
In his closing, Camus strikes a note of optimism. When we find ourselves in turbulent times — as Camus did and as we now do ourselves — we should rejoice. "Rejoice, indeed, at having witnessed the death of a comfortable, deceitful Europe, and at facing cruel truths. Rejoice as people, because a lie that lasted for a long time has crumbled, and we can now clearly see what is threatening us," (p 42).
Camus makes a point of emphasizing that art should not inflame or incite, that art is inserting itself into a fragile world and that the responsibility of the artist extends to minimizing violent or dominating effects. "Brutality is never temporary," (p 28) Camus bluntly puts it. This point is a clear illustration of the foundational difference that drove Camus and Sartre apart, with Sartre taking the view that brutal and violent revolution may be necessary in the service of building a just (communist) society.
In his closing, Camus strikes a note of optimism. When we find ourselves in turbulent times — as Camus did and as we now do ourselves — we should rejoice. "Rejoice, indeed, at having witnessed the death of a comfortable, deceitful Europe, and at facing cruel truths. Rejoice as people, because a lie that lasted for a long time has crumbled, and we can now clearly see what is threatening us," (p 42).
August 28, 2024
"Our poisoned hearts must be cured. And the most difficult battle to be won against the enemy in the future must be fought within ourselves, with an exceptional effort that will transform our appetite for hatred into a desire for justice. Not giving in to hatred, not making any concessions to violence, not allowing our passions to become blind - these are the things we can still do for friendship [...]"
June 12, 2025
A brief but spirited defence of the arts and a rallying cry for artists to engage with and help change society for the better.
It's probably best if you've read some of Albert Camus other works before you read this so that you understand his style and his ideals.
All in all a nice bite-sized literary battle cry.
It's probably best if you've read some of Albert Camus other works before you read this so that you understand his style and his ideals.
All in all a nice bite-sized literary battle cry.
November 17, 2020
173rd book of 2020.
Three interesting speeches from Camus; I particularly liked the first two. I'll add some of the quotes later, but the title speech, which takes up most of the book, is enlightening, and quite empowering—Camus discusses the right the artist has to challenge and "speak up".
To create today is to create dangerously. Any publication is an act, and that act exposes one to the passions of an age that forgives nothing.
I think this has only become more true, since Camus first said this.
Three interesting speeches from Camus; I particularly liked the first two. I'll add some of the quotes later, but the title speech, which takes up most of the book, is enlightening, and quite empowering—Camus discusses the right the artist has to challenge and "speak up".
To create today is to create dangerously. Any publication is an act, and that act exposes one to the passions of an age that forgives nothing.
I think this has only become more true, since Camus first said this.
November 1, 2025
Should be read by every artist, whether at heart or by practice. It is inspiring and rebellious and indeed, timeless.
Some notable quotes:
“It would be far better, in my opinion, to participate in our times, since our age is clamoring for us to do so, and quite loudly, by calmly accepting that the era of cherished masters, artists with camellias in their lapels and armchair geniuses, is over. To create today means to create dangerously. Every publication is a deliberate act, and that act makes us vulnerable to the passions of a century that forgives nothing. And so, the question is not to know whether taking action is or is not damaging to art. The question, to everyone who cannot live without art and all it signifies, is simply to know—given the strict controls of countless ideologies (so many cults, such solitude!)—how the enigmatic freedom of creation remains possible.”
“What would art speak of, in fact? If it were to conform to what the majority of our society asks of it, art would be merely entertaining, without substance. If artists were to blindly reject society, and choose to isolate themselves in their dreams, they would express nothing but negativity. We would thus have only the works of entertainers or experts in the theory of form, which, in both cases, would result in art being cut off from the reality of life.”
“This ideal of global communication is, in fact, the ideal of every great artist. Contrary to current prejudicial ideas, the people who do not have the right to stand alone are precisely the artists. Art cannot be a monologue.”
“But to speak to everyone about everyone, it is necessary to speak of what everyone knows and the reality that is common to us all. The sea, the rain, our needs and desires, the struggle against death—these are the things that unite us. We resemble each other through what we see together, the things we suffer through together. Dreams change according to the person, but the reality of the world is our common ground.”
“Artists choose their purpose as much as they are chosen by that purpose. In a certain way, art is a revolt against the world in that it encompasses what is fleeting and unfinished: art does not, therefore, take on anything more than the purpose of giving another shape to a reality that it is, nevertheless, constrained to conserve, because reality is the source of art’s emotion. In this respect, we are all realists and no one is a realist. Art is neither total rejection nor total acceptance of what is. It is both rejection and acceptance, at one and the same time, and that is why it can be continually and perpetually torn apart. Artists always find themselves dealing with this ambiguity, incapable of rejecting what is real, yet still devoted to challenging the ever-unfinished aspects of reality.”
“Every now and then, a new world emerges, a world that is different from our everyday world, yet the same, unique but universal, full of innocent insecurity, born for a brief moment thanks to the strength and dissatisfaction of the genius. It is something and yet it is not something—the world is nothing and the world is everything. Such is the dual, tireless cry of all true artists, the cry that keeps them standing, eyes wide open, and that, from time to time, awakens in everyone, deep within the heart of this sleepy world, the insistent yet fleeting image of a reality that we recognize without having ever experienced it.”
“A prophet, priest, or politician can judge absolutely, and moreover, as we well know, they do not refrain from doing so. But artists cannot. If they judged absolutely, they would classify the nuances of reality as either good or evil, with nothing in between, thus creating melodrama. The goal of art, on the contrary, is not to establish rules or to reign; it is first and foremost to understand.”
“the lesson artists learn from beauty, if it is honestly learned, is not the lesson of egotism but of solid brotherhood. When conceived in this way, beauty has never enslaved anyone. Quite the opposite. On every day, at every moment, for thousands of years, beauty has consoled millions of people in their servitude, and, sometimes, even freed some of them forever.”
“But if art is not a dangerous adventure, then what is it, and what is its justification? No, free artists cannot enjoy comfort any more than free people can. Free artists are those who, with great difficulty, create order themselves. The more chaos they must bring order to, the stricter their rules will be, and the more they will have affirmed their freedom. Gide said something that I have always agreed with, even though it might be misunderstood: “Art lives from constraint and dies from freedom.” That is true, but we must not draw the conclusion that art should be controlled. Art only lives through the constraints it places upon itself: it dies from any others. On the other hand, if art does not control itself, it descends into madness and is enslaved by its own illusions. The most liberated form of art, and the most rebellious, will thus be the most enduring; it will glorify the greatest effort. If a society and its artists do not accept this long, liberating task, if they yield to the comforts of entertainment or conformity, to the diversions of art for art’s sake or the moralizing of realistic art, its artists will remain entrenched in nihilism and sterility. Saying this means that a rebirth in art today depends on our courage and our desire to see clearly.”
“Well, our age is one of those fires whose indefensible flames will probably reduce many great works of art to ashes! But the works that survive will remain strong and intact, and when describing them, we will be able, without hesitation, to revel in that supreme joy of the intelligence we call “admiration.””
“hope is awakened, given life, sustained, by the millions of individuals whose deeds and actions, every day, break down borders and refute the worst moments in history, to allow the truth—which is always in danger—to shine brightly, even if only fleetingly, the truth, which every individual builds for us all, created out of suffering and joy.”
Some notable quotes:
“It would be far better, in my opinion, to participate in our times, since our age is clamoring for us to do so, and quite loudly, by calmly accepting that the era of cherished masters, artists with camellias in their lapels and armchair geniuses, is over. To create today means to create dangerously. Every publication is a deliberate act, and that act makes us vulnerable to the passions of a century that forgives nothing. And so, the question is not to know whether taking action is or is not damaging to art. The question, to everyone who cannot live without art and all it signifies, is simply to know—given the strict controls of countless ideologies (so many cults, such solitude!)—how the enigmatic freedom of creation remains possible.”
“What would art speak of, in fact? If it were to conform to what the majority of our society asks of it, art would be merely entertaining, without substance. If artists were to blindly reject society, and choose to isolate themselves in their dreams, they would express nothing but negativity. We would thus have only the works of entertainers or experts in the theory of form, which, in both cases, would result in art being cut off from the reality of life.”
“This ideal of global communication is, in fact, the ideal of every great artist. Contrary to current prejudicial ideas, the people who do not have the right to stand alone are precisely the artists. Art cannot be a monologue.”
“But to speak to everyone about everyone, it is necessary to speak of what everyone knows and the reality that is common to us all. The sea, the rain, our needs and desires, the struggle against death—these are the things that unite us. We resemble each other through what we see together, the things we suffer through together. Dreams change according to the person, but the reality of the world is our common ground.”
“Artists choose their purpose as much as they are chosen by that purpose. In a certain way, art is a revolt against the world in that it encompasses what is fleeting and unfinished: art does not, therefore, take on anything more than the purpose of giving another shape to a reality that it is, nevertheless, constrained to conserve, because reality is the source of art’s emotion. In this respect, we are all realists and no one is a realist. Art is neither total rejection nor total acceptance of what is. It is both rejection and acceptance, at one and the same time, and that is why it can be continually and perpetually torn apart. Artists always find themselves dealing with this ambiguity, incapable of rejecting what is real, yet still devoted to challenging the ever-unfinished aspects of reality.”
“Every now and then, a new world emerges, a world that is different from our everyday world, yet the same, unique but universal, full of innocent insecurity, born for a brief moment thanks to the strength and dissatisfaction of the genius. It is something and yet it is not something—the world is nothing and the world is everything. Such is the dual, tireless cry of all true artists, the cry that keeps them standing, eyes wide open, and that, from time to time, awakens in everyone, deep within the heart of this sleepy world, the insistent yet fleeting image of a reality that we recognize without having ever experienced it.”
“A prophet, priest, or politician can judge absolutely, and moreover, as we well know, they do not refrain from doing so. But artists cannot. If they judged absolutely, they would classify the nuances of reality as either good or evil, with nothing in between, thus creating melodrama. The goal of art, on the contrary, is not to establish rules or to reign; it is first and foremost to understand.”
“the lesson artists learn from beauty, if it is honestly learned, is not the lesson of egotism but of solid brotherhood. When conceived in this way, beauty has never enslaved anyone. Quite the opposite. On every day, at every moment, for thousands of years, beauty has consoled millions of people in their servitude, and, sometimes, even freed some of them forever.”
“But if art is not a dangerous adventure, then what is it, and what is its justification? No, free artists cannot enjoy comfort any more than free people can. Free artists are those who, with great difficulty, create order themselves. The more chaos they must bring order to, the stricter their rules will be, and the more they will have affirmed their freedom. Gide said something that I have always agreed with, even though it might be misunderstood: “Art lives from constraint and dies from freedom.” That is true, but we must not draw the conclusion that art should be controlled. Art only lives through the constraints it places upon itself: it dies from any others. On the other hand, if art does not control itself, it descends into madness and is enslaved by its own illusions. The most liberated form of art, and the most rebellious, will thus be the most enduring; it will glorify the greatest effort. If a society and its artists do not accept this long, liberating task, if they yield to the comforts of entertainment or conformity, to the diversions of art for art’s sake or the moralizing of realistic art, its artists will remain entrenched in nihilism and sterility. Saying this means that a rebirth in art today depends on our courage and our desire to see clearly.”
“Well, our age is one of those fires whose indefensible flames will probably reduce many great works of art to ashes! But the works that survive will remain strong and intact, and when describing them, we will be able, without hesitation, to revel in that supreme joy of the intelligence we call “admiration.””
“hope is awakened, given life, sustained, by the millions of individuals whose deeds and actions, every day, break down borders and refute the worst moments in history, to allow the truth—which is always in danger—to shine brightly, even if only fleetingly, the truth, which every individual builds for us all, created out of suffering and joy.”
January 23, 2020
“Tyrants know there is in the work of art an emancipatory force, which is mysterious only to those who do not revere it.”
October 25, 2020
Poucas semanas depois de receber o Nobel, Camus deu uma palestra na Universidade de Uppsala, Suécia, sob o título "L’Artiste et Son Temps", que seria traduzida para inglês como "Create Dangerously", e que nos fala de ambas as coisas, do momento na história em que Camus olhava para si como artista, assim como das suas responsabilidades e do seu impacto. O texto, pela sua dureza, acaba sendo algo reducionista, mas faz parte do ativismo, que não se faz sem intolerância, que não depende de consentimento porque busca a defesa de valores universais.
O texto lê-se hoje como algo ultrapassado, porque se percebemos o valor da arte e dos artistas, nem por isso nos quedamos apenas à espera da sua intervenção. Hoje muitos mais têm voz, e por isso não é apenas o artista que precisa de de criar perigosamente, somos todos nós que não nos podemos abster, nunca.
Ficam alguns excertos do texto original em francês:
"Au milieu de ce vacarme, l’écrivain ne peut plus espérer se tenir à l’écart pour poursuivre les réflexions et les images qui lui sont chères. Jusqu’à présent, et tant bien que mal, l’abstention a toujours été possible dans l’histoire. Celui qui n’approuvait pas, il pouvait souvent se taire, ou parler d’autre chose. Aujourd’hui, tout est changé, le silence même prend un sens redoutable. À partir du moment où l’abstention elle-même est considérée comme un choix, puni ou loué comme tel, l’artiste, qu’il le veuille ou non, est embarqué. Embarqué me paraît ici plus juste qu’engagé. Il ne s’agit pas en effet pour l’artiste d’un engagement volontaire, mais plutôt d’un service militaire obligatoire. Tout artiste aujourd’hui est embarqué dans la galère de son temps. Il doit s’y résigner, même s’il juge que cette galère sent le hareng, que les gardes-chiourme y sont vraiment trop nombreux et que, de surcroît, le cap est mal pris. Nous sommes en pleine mer. L’artiste, comme les autres, doit ramer à son tour, sans mourir, s’il le peut, c’est-à-dire en continuant de vivre et de créer."
"De quoi parlerait-il en effet ? S’il se conforme à ce que demande notre société, dans sa majorité, il sera divertissement sans portée. S’il la refuse aveuglement, si l’artiste décide de s’isoler dans son rêve, il n’exprimera rien d’autre qu’un refus. Nous aurons ainsi une production d’amuseurs ou de grammairiens de la forme, qui, dans les deux cas, aboutit à un art coupé de la réalité vivante."
"Les fabricants d’art (je n’ai pas encore dit les artistes) de l’Europe bourgeoise, avant et après 1900, ont ainsi accepté l’irresponsabilité parce que la responsabilité supposait une rupture épuisante avec leur société (...) C’est de cette époque que date la théorie de l’art pour l’art qui n’est que la revendication de cette irresponsabilité. L’art pour l’art, le divertissement d’un artiste solitaire, est bien justement l’art artificiel d’une société factice et abstraite. Son aboutissement logique, c’est l’art des salons, ou l’art purement formel qui se nourrit de préciosités et d’abstractions et qui finit par la destruction de toute réalité."
"La plus grande célébrité, aujourd’hui, consiste à être admiré ou détesté sans avoir été lu."
"Des cet instant, ils ont nié que l’artiste ait droit à la solitude et lui ont offert comme sujet, non pas ses rêves, mais la réalité vécue et soufferte par tous. Certains que l’art pour l’art, par ses sujets comme par son style, échappe à la compréhension des masses, ou bien n’exprime rien de leur vérité, ces hommes ont voulu que l’artiste se proposât au contraire de parler du et pour le plus grand nombre. Qu’il traduise les souffrances et le bon- heur de tous dans le langage de tous, et il sera compris universellement. En récompense d’une fidélité absolue à la réalité, il obtiendra la communication totale entre les hommes."
"Nous devons savoir au contraire que nous ne pouvons nous évader de la misère commune, et que notre seule justification, s’il en est une, est de parler, dans la mesure de nos moyens, pour ceux qui ne peuvent le faire."
"Pour finir, peut-être touchons-nous ici la grandeur de l’art, dans cette perpétuelle tension entre la beauté et la douleur, l’amour des hommes et la folie de la création, la solitude insupportable et la foule harassante, le refus et le consentement. Il chemine entre deux abîmes, qui sont la frivolité et la propagande.
Réjouissons-nous, en effet, d’avoir vu mourir une Europe menteuse et confortable et de nous trou- ver confrontés à de cruelles vérités. Réjouissons-nous en tant qu’hommes puisqu’une longue mystification s’est écroulée et que nous voyons clair dans ce qui nous menace."
"Le temps des artistes irresponsables est passé."
"Create Dangerously. A Lecture by Albert Camus", December 14, 1957 at the University of Uppsala in Sweden
O texto lê-se hoje como algo ultrapassado, porque se percebemos o valor da arte e dos artistas, nem por isso nos quedamos apenas à espera da sua intervenção. Hoje muitos mais têm voz, e por isso não é apenas o artista que precisa de de criar perigosamente, somos todos nós que não nos podemos abster, nunca.
Ficam alguns excertos do texto original em francês:
"Au milieu de ce vacarme, l’écrivain ne peut plus espérer se tenir à l’écart pour poursuivre les réflexions et les images qui lui sont chères. Jusqu’à présent, et tant bien que mal, l’abstention a toujours été possible dans l’histoire. Celui qui n’approuvait pas, il pouvait souvent se taire, ou parler d’autre chose. Aujourd’hui, tout est changé, le silence même prend un sens redoutable. À partir du moment où l’abstention elle-même est considérée comme un choix, puni ou loué comme tel, l’artiste, qu’il le veuille ou non, est embarqué. Embarqué me paraît ici plus juste qu’engagé. Il ne s’agit pas en effet pour l’artiste d’un engagement volontaire, mais plutôt d’un service militaire obligatoire. Tout artiste aujourd’hui est embarqué dans la galère de son temps. Il doit s’y résigner, même s’il juge que cette galère sent le hareng, que les gardes-chiourme y sont vraiment trop nombreux et que, de surcroît, le cap est mal pris. Nous sommes en pleine mer. L’artiste, comme les autres, doit ramer à son tour, sans mourir, s’il le peut, c’est-à-dire en continuant de vivre et de créer."
"De quoi parlerait-il en effet ? S’il se conforme à ce que demande notre société, dans sa majorité, il sera divertissement sans portée. S’il la refuse aveuglement, si l’artiste décide de s’isoler dans son rêve, il n’exprimera rien d’autre qu’un refus. Nous aurons ainsi une production d’amuseurs ou de grammairiens de la forme, qui, dans les deux cas, aboutit à un art coupé de la réalité vivante."
"Les fabricants d’art (je n’ai pas encore dit les artistes) de l’Europe bourgeoise, avant et après 1900, ont ainsi accepté l’irresponsabilité parce que la responsabilité supposait une rupture épuisante avec leur société (...) C’est de cette époque que date la théorie de l’art pour l’art qui n’est que la revendication de cette irresponsabilité. L’art pour l’art, le divertissement d’un artiste solitaire, est bien justement l’art artificiel d’une société factice et abstraite. Son aboutissement logique, c’est l’art des salons, ou l’art purement formel qui se nourrit de préciosités et d’abstractions et qui finit par la destruction de toute réalité."
"La plus grande célébrité, aujourd’hui, consiste à être admiré ou détesté sans avoir été lu."
"Des cet instant, ils ont nié que l’artiste ait droit à la solitude et lui ont offert comme sujet, non pas ses rêves, mais la réalité vécue et soufferte par tous. Certains que l’art pour l’art, par ses sujets comme par son style, échappe à la compréhension des masses, ou bien n’exprime rien de leur vérité, ces hommes ont voulu que l’artiste se proposât au contraire de parler du et pour le plus grand nombre. Qu’il traduise les souffrances et le bon- heur de tous dans le langage de tous, et il sera compris universellement. En récompense d’une fidélité absolue à la réalité, il obtiendra la communication totale entre les hommes."
"Nous devons savoir au contraire que nous ne pouvons nous évader de la misère commune, et que notre seule justification, s’il en est une, est de parler, dans la mesure de nos moyens, pour ceux qui ne peuvent le faire."
"Pour finir, peut-être touchons-nous ici la grandeur de l’art, dans cette perpétuelle tension entre la beauté et la douleur, l’amour des hommes et la folie de la création, la solitude insupportable et la foule harassante, le refus et le consentement. Il chemine entre deux abîmes, qui sont la frivolité et la propagande.
Réjouissons-nous, en effet, d’avoir vu mourir une Europe menteuse et confortable et de nous trou- ver confrontés à de cruelles vérités. Réjouissons-nous en tant qu’hommes puisqu’une longue mystification s’est écroulée et que nous voyons clair dans ce qui nous menace."
"Le temps des artistes irresponsables est passé."
"Create Dangerously. A Lecture by Albert Camus", December 14, 1957 at the University of Uppsala in Sweden
February 12, 2025
This is very short and very theoretical, but Camus’ ideas on art are as relevant now as they were when he wrote this in the 1950’s. He says artists ‘must be realistic and yet cannot be. They want to make their art subservient to reality, and reality cannot be described without effecting a choice that makes it subservient to the originality of the art’. It seems to be a reminder that there’s an inevitable disjunction between readers/writers, artists/fans, which is scrutinised more than ever today- it questions what the role of an artist is, and he suggests it’s impossible for artists to demonstrate a true reality since the position of an artist, by definition, removes them from the reality of the person consuming their art.
November 22, 2022
Would give 3.5 if I could. I’ve never read the philosophy behind art before and I found it interesting, if inaccessible. Interesting take on the evolving role of the artist between 19th and 20th centuries and the evolving role of the artist.
March 13, 2018
Three essays or speeches by Albert Camus. "Create Dangerously" the first speech/essay and also the title of the book, is interesting in the context of being an artist in society. Again, the term 'art for art's sake' I feel is misunderstood by many including Camus. Camus argues that it's important that an artist's voice is heard in the political process or a world of horror and despair. Which is totally understandable, but I believe it's impossible to be an artist and NOT commenting on the world or on one's world. Even living in a vacuum is in a sense a commentary on the outside world. That can't be avoided.
October 19, 2018
"... separating freedom from justice is tantamount to separating culture & labour, which is the epitome of the social sin."
November 2, 2022
« after all, perhaps the greatness of art lies in the perpetual tension between beauty and pain , the love of men and the madness of creation , unbearable solitude and the exhausting crowd, rejection and consent.» no bc it was actually really interesting to read
Read
May 11, 2024All I could think of whilst reading this was how incredible it would have been to hear these words from Albert Camus mouth.
Read
December 14, 2024“What, then, is art? Nothing simple, that is certain. And it is even harder to find out amid shouts of so many people bent on simplifying everything. On the one hand, genius is expected to be splendid and solitary; the other hand, it is called upon to resemble all. Alas, reality is more complex. And Balzac suggested this in a sentence: ‘The genius resembles everyone and no one resembles him.’ So it is with art, which is nothing withoutwithout reality, and without which reality is insignificant. How, indeed, could art get along without the real and how could art be subservient to it?”
March 12, 2018
Another thought-provoking collection of essays. What is freedom and what is art? Very well-written.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 698 reviews