Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Master of the Game

I do understand that some people want to know more about things they are interested in. But who says it is compulsory?
It is often seen that in our school curriculum, we are forced to learn about scientists if we want to learn science. Sure knowing about great people and their methods is both inspiring and informative..but what if we want to be absolutely original? One must agree, inspiration does cause adulteration of pure art and innovation. Our subconscious mind does do the Copy-Paste thing.

Can a Scientist not be inspired by his own curiosity instead of Einstein?
Can an Astronomer not be inspired by the stars instead of Galileo?
Can a Painter not be inspired by the landscape instead of Monet ?
Can a Dancer not be inspired by movement instead of Anna Pavlova?
Can a Musician not be inspired by sounds instead of Beethoven?
Can a Writer not be inspired by his own experiences instead of Charles Dickens?

Do we really need to know the Master of the Game to play the game? What inspiration did these people have? Did Galileo read a biography of some person X so that he could do what he did? Did Beethoven listen to many great compositions before he could produce his own?
And would they be respected as much had they read and done, as they are when they have just done.


  1. Beethoven was hard of hearing.

  2. dude , do you sisters think a lot or not !
    but this has a simple answer (given to me by my teacher )

    he said we suffer from coming late into the world, the things that we can be inspired by have already inspired people and they have "seen this and done that" , to do sumthin original today you gotta know wats olrdy been done !