ADAM

“Le bonheur, disait-il,
C'est une affaire d'agilité
Des mains et de l'esprit.
Les âmes maladroites, on le sait,
Sont malheureuses dans la vie.
Et peu importe que les gestes
Distordus, mensongers
Soient une source de tourments.
Dans les orages et les tempêtes,
Au cœur du quotidien fade et figé,
Dans les plus lourdes des pertes
Et quand la tristesse t'inonde,
Paraître simple et souriant
Est l'art le plus sublime au monde.”
― Sergei Yesenin, L'Homme noir

“The reason for which a work of genius is not easily admired from the first is that the man who has created it is extraordinary, that few other men resemble him. It was Beethoven’s Quartets themselves (the Twelfth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth) that devoted half a century to forming, fashioning and enlarging a public for Beethoven’s Quartets, marking in this way, like every great work of art, an advance if not in artistic merit at least in intellectual society, largely composed to-day of what was not to be found when the work first appeared, that is to say of persons capable of enjoying it. What artists call posterity is the posterity of the work of art. It is essential that the work (leaving out of account, for brevity’s sake, the contingency that several men of genius may at the same time be working along parallel lines to create a more instructed public in the future, a public from which other men of genius shall reap the benefit) shall create its own posterity. For if the work were held in reserve, were revealed only to posterity, that audience, for that particular work, would be not posterity but a group of contemporaries who were merely living half-a-century later in time. And so it is essential that the artist (and this is what Vinteuil had done), if he wishes his work to be free to follow its own course, shall launch it, wherever he may find sufficient depth, confidently outward bound towards the future. And yet this interval of time, the true perspective in which to behold a work of art, if leaving it out of account is the mistake made by bad judges, taking it into account is at times a dangerous precaution of the good. No doubt one can easily imagine, by an illusion similar to that which makes everything on the horizon appear equidistant, that all the revolutions which have hitherto occurred in painting or in music did at least shew respect for certain rules, whereas that which immediately confronts us, be it impressionism, a striving after discord, an exclusive use of the Chinese scale, cubism, futurism or what you will, differs outrageously from all that have occurred before. Simply because those that have occurred before we are apt to regard as a whole, forgetting that a long process of assimilation has melted them into a continuous substance, varied of course but, taking it as a whole, homogeneous, in which Hugo blends with Molière. Let us try to imagine the shocking incoherence that we should find, if we did not take into account the future, and the changes that it must bring about, in a horoscope of our own riper years, drawn and presented to us in our youth. Only horoscopes are not always accurate, and the necessity, when judging a work of art, of including the temporal factor in the sum total of its beauty introduces, to our way of thinking, something as hazardous, and consequently as barren of interest, as every prophecy the non-fulfillment of which will not at all imply any inadequacy on the prophet’s part, for the power to summon possibilities into existence or to exclude them from it is not necessarily within the competence of genius; one may have had genius and yet not have believed in the future of railways or of flight, or, although a brilliant psychologist, in the infidelity of a mistress or of a friend whose treachery persons far less gifted would have foreseen.”
― Marcel Proust, In the Shadow of Young Girls in Flower

“Be gentle with those who are less lucky, if not more deserving. Think, what right have you to be scornful, whose virtue is a deficiency of temptation, whose success may be a chance, whose rank may be an ancestor’s accident, whose prosperity is very likely a satire.”
― William Makepeace Thackeray, Vanity Fair

“There are some who write for human praise, by means of the noble qualities of the heart that their imagination invents, or that they may have. Me, I use my genius to portray the delights of cruelty! Not momentary, artificial delights; but ones that started with man, and will finish with him. Cannot genius ally itself with cruelty in the secret resolutions of Providence? Or, because one is cruel, can't one have genius? The proof is in my words; all you have to do is listen to me, if you want to... Excuse me, it seemed that my hair was standing upright on my head.”
― Le Comte De Lautréamont, Les Chants de Maldoror