Unhealthy for INFJs to create art?

[z523x4gr98j]

I haven't posted much here since last summer, but a recent exchange I had with an MBTI theorist at personalityjunkie.com has left me frazzled. After thinking about it over the past few weeks and trying to articulate my exact thoughts, they still sound muddled when I try to write them. So I need insight from other INFJs.

Usually, I find the articles on personalityjunkie.com to be incredibly accurate and insightful. However, I took issue with this one:


Dominant-Inferior Function Dynamics: Healthy vs. Unhealthy


Particularly, the example it gives for INJs "jumping the stack," or satisfying the inferior function in an unhealthy way:
"Physically producing art or otherwise working to directly actualize (Se) ideas"


The proposed "healthy" means of satisfying inferior Se is to "Perceive and generate theories/visions/ideas (Ni) that indirectly beautify or perfect the world (Se)"


I left this comment on the article:

Mmm… I’m an INFJ and an artist, and I don’t know how I feel about creating art being used as a negative example of INJs indulging the inferior function. The way I see it, I *am* working my way down the stack, not jumping the stack. I’m starting with an Ni vision and working my way down to Se, the end result. I’m sure this is why I work so differently from most artists I know, and why it took some of my art professors a while to trust my process.

Most artists work spontaneously and intuitively, going by feel, not planning ahead too much. I spend more time visualizing and going through series of sketches than I do on the actual artwork. I can’t start until I’m sure the final product is going to end up looking like my initial vision (or close enough). After everything is in place, I can work more intuitively. But only within the framework I set.I talked to a couple of other artists on INFJ forum and they said they worked the same way. One of them said he’d discussed it with many INFJ artists, and they all said the same thing.

Jumping the stack for an INJ, I think, would be a more physical activity like sports. If I were to push myself to be a dancer or an athlete or anything of that sort, I’d be extremely unhealthy physically, mentally and emotionally.

Looking back though, I don't even stand by my example of sports and other strenuous physical activities. I was just trying to give a better example of an Se activity than art, which has many different layers and endless interpretations/movements that correspond to different cognitive functions. But no activity can be reduced entirely to one MBTI function. The more I think about it, the more absurd it seems to say "_____________ is a purely Se activity that INJs should avoid at all costs."

The two INFJ artists I mentioned were Matariki and VH, by the way. I'd like to hear what they think about this whole thing.
I got this response from a fellow INFJ who is very knowledgeable on MBTI and a big contributor to the site. I appreciate that she gave such a thoughtful response, and I gave a lot of consideration to her ideas because she is more knowledgeable on MBTI, and I find personalityjunkie.com to be the best MBTI resource on the web. But still, it just doesn't sit right with me.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and concerns. If you’ll permit me to continue the discussion, I think I can help shed light on some of the issues at play here. That said however, I am rather cautious to respond to inquiries like yours because of the way they touch on the sensitivity of the inferior function and our psyche’s desire to protect it. Please recognize that I’m not attempting to tell you that it’s wrong to be an artist only that, from both personal experience and theoretical study, such a path tends to lead to feelings of confinement rather than freedom.

The process that you describe, while it “technically” uses the stack in its functional order from the top down, is a phenomenon that I call inferior function “bolstering” – it’s a process of reinforcing a predefined endpoint already established by the desires of the inferior function which gives the appearance of being authentic (since it “technically” uses the stack from the top down), but which has essentially been “rigged” beforehand. In other words, it’s illusory.

The end goal, no matter what the “process”, has already been consciously determined by you.

It’s the difference between “envisioning” and “interpreting.” Interpreting does not imply an agenda or motive – it is intrinsic. It allows the INFJ to relinquish conscious control over Se and, instead, focus on the strength of Ni – a function which the INFJ excels at using. When the INFJ is “envisioning,” however, there is an implication that he has in mind a clear Se endpoint that he’d like to control and create. There is an implication that he wants artistic (Se) control.

Okay..... So she's basically saying that any Se involvement whatsoever taints your pure Ni vision and is unhealthy. That.... just doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me. When you get down to it, ANY motivation could be traced back to Se, if you choose to interpret it that way. Does that mean I should go "Oh no, evil Se was behind this all along, I must run the other way!"? That seems like the complete opposite of healthy behavior to me.

That's what's so frustrating! These articles that always talk about about how you need to "integrate" your inferior function for "personal growth"—they NEVER tell you HOW to do that. And now I'm being told that even a largely mental/intuitive activity like art is unhealthy for me to engage in because—oh no!—the final product is physical (Se). So if I can't even engage my Se through an intuitive outlet, how the hell am I supposed to "integrate" it for my personal growth?

What is proposed is to "Perceive and generate theories/visions/ideas (Ni) that indirectly beautify or perfect the world (Se)."
That's all good and well, but what the hell does it mean? I'm supposed to sit in an armchair for the rest of my life and just think of pretty ideas and theories? And I'm supposed to leave it to the Se types to give enough of a shit about my ideas to go and put them into action? Um, I'm sorry, but that is NOT how the world works. And who is going to pay me to just sit and think all day? How am I to make a living and support myself? By hiding from the real world and living in my own Ni bubble? I don't think so.

I just don't see how it's helpful in any way to tell people "you're wired this way because you're this MBTI type, so you should only partake in these select few activities that use your cognitive function in their natural order." There are incredibly few, if any, activities that perfectly follow the functional stack of any MBTI type. Life is full of variables and nothing fits into such neat little boxes. Life will constantly throw me into situations where I have to—gasp—use Se directly. Or Fe, or Ti, or even the other functions that aren't in my main stack, like Fi and Te (which, by the way, how do those come into play within this rigid system? How can she be sure I'm not using Fi or Ne when creating art? Just because I'm an INFJ doesn't mean I'm limited to four functions. And if Se is the core motivation of all art, as she seems to be saying, what about all the INFP artists? Where do they fit in the picture?).

The inferior function Se is very sensitive to disruptions in the beauty and harmony of the sensory environment. When the inferior Se subconsciously detects ugliness, disharmony, or sensory imperfection in the environment, it sends a coded message (subconsciously up the stack) to dominant introverted intuition that something “out there” is out of whack. The natural instinct or reaction often is to “fix” by “fixing” or “beautify” by “beautifying” – that is to create Se change that will overcome the perceived flaw. But to alter Se by altering Se is a job for ESP types. INFJ types aren’t afforded that method authentically. And while it could be argued that you are “technically” using other functions in the process of making Se art, the initial purpose remains the same: to alter Se. This process voids the ability to use Ni for the sake of Ni. Ni is now utilized exclusively for the sake of Se. There is an ulterior motive.

I have experienced the process she describes. It sometimes leads me to perfectionism, and I can get caught up in trying to perfect tiny details of my art. But when I find myself slipping into this, I'll create a messy, spontaneous piece to get myself out of that rut.

I suggested that if art is not my sole pursuit (I also write a lot to express my Ni ideals, for example), there could be a healthy balance between dominant Ni activities and other activities. She didn't shoot down this idea but didn't really embrace it, either. It's clear that she thinks INJs should try to primarily use Ni at all times.

"But to alter Se by altering Se is a job for ESP types." This just sounds nonsensical to me—to divvy up basic tasks between MBTI types and say "this is a job for S types only." S types will all do it in a certain way. N types will have an entirely different way of approaching it. Can you imagine how stale the art world would be if only one type of personality created art? Art is supposed to speak to all types of people. The art world would be so flat and narrow if only S types contributed to it.

Also, I see no backing at all for her claim that "while it could be argued that you are “technically” using other functions in the process of making Se art, the initial purpose remains the same: to alter Se."

That's a huge assumption. Just because the process ends in altering Se doesn't mean that was the initial purpose. I don't create art for the sake of making scratches on paper. That would be completely dull and boring to me. And it offends me that she keeps reducing art to that. To say that art is essentially all about physically marking paper or manipulating materials with your hands, is a slap in the face to every conceptual art movement. I know she didn't intend it that way, but she refuses to concede that art can be traced back to a non-Se purpose.

As an INFJ I have had a similar relationship to the arts and understand very well the method that you describe. I spent a number of years working tirelessly to perfect my ideas and see them come into fruition (often with much frustration that nothing ever met my idealized visions.) Majoring both in undergraduate school in studio art, and then eventually attempting again to give Se form to my Ni visions via culinary school studying pastry arts, I became so consumed with the ideal that I found myself exasperated and ill-equipped when it came to handling the Ti and Se logistical rigors involved with working with my hands and senses constantly. In hindsight, I came to realize that by trying to master one very small corner of the Se world, perfecting “pain au chocolat” for example, I was actually giving in to the impulses of my ego and inferior function. I was attempting to feel in control of the Se world that I felt was so ugly and in need of my perfect visions. It was an exercise in futility. All of the truly fundamental problems in the Se world were not going to be smoothed over by hazelnut soufflés, no matter how scrumptious.

Would that necessarily be the case for all INJ artists, though? Her personal experience should be a warning to INJ artists of a potential trap. But I don't see it as inevitable.

What I have since come to realize, and what has been borne out in theoretical study in my interactions with various types, is that attempting to control for and grab onto the inferior function in a focused and determined way is usually what leads people into grip experiences. They come to feel trapped, not freed by the desires of the inferior function for idealism. Slipping into grip experiences is incredibly common and the inferior function is a very slippery, tricky, and insidious animal. It would be a mistake to think that the most common example of jumping the stack would be as obvious as being “physically active” via hard physical labor or playing sports, for eg. Most INFJ’s have enough good sense to stay away from many of these more obviously off-putting activities. It’s the “blurrier” combinations of Se and Ni that tend to intrigue

.

But, like I said before... In real life, what activity will not involve Se in some way, shape, or form? What could be more unhealthy than trying to avoid Se entirely? That would mean doing nothing!

I thought we were supposed to come to terms with our Se and *stop* viewing it as "a very slippery, tricky, and insidious animal." How is villifying and running away from the inferior function going to help anything?

Again, I hope that you don’t read the above as criticism or judgment of your pursuits, rather a cautionary tale about how it is still possible (potentially even more likely) to be undermined by the inferior function even in times when we technically perceive ourselves to be using our functional stack in its logical order.

Okay, that last part is totally just the Fe card. I know it because I'm an INFJ too and I pull that card all the time. What she really means is "I am criticizing and judging your artistic pursuits and I am convinced they will only end badly for you, but I don't want to offend you or start an internet argument."

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm angry at her or anything. I really did appreciate that she gave such a well thought-out response. If I sound frustrated, it's not aimed at her, but at the idea that something that has been second nature to me from the moment I was physically capable of holding a pencil, is unhealthy for me. The idea that a talent nature saw fit to bestow upon me should be wasted because an expert is telling me it's "meant for S types." Effectively, telling me "you're not a true artist. S types are the true artists, and you're an S wannabe."

It also alarms me the more I think about it, because I imagine what the world would be like if everyone knew their MBTI type and we were all told our whole lives that "Se types should have these hobbies/goals, Ni types should have these hobbies/goals," etc. I mean, can you imagine that? Think of all the wasted human potential! I put a ton of stock into MBTI theory, but in the end, it's a fixed model and personality is not. There are all kinds of variations and human beings are way too complex to be stuffed into neat little boxes. Usually I get so annoyed by people who resist MBTI because they think that it's just a label system. I see it as an extremely helpful, often accurate tool for navigating your psyche. But the strict guidelines being set forth by these MBTI theorists are, in my opinion, extremely limiting and narrow-minded. They don't allow for various motivations behind different activities. It's an overly reductionist point of view that, to me, seems more detrimental than helpful to human growth/understanding.

Gah, I feel like I'm coming across as badmouthing them behind their backs or something, which is not my intention at all. I have a lot of respect for them, and this is merely one negative idea (in my opinion) out of a gold mine of great theories on the website. But after mulling over all this for weeks, I felt I needed outside opinions. I did try to continue the discussion with her, but I felt like she had already made up her mind that my artistic pursuits were futile and that she would merely think I was reacting defensively to protect my sensitive Se. (Maybe I was wrong, but I felt that way, and decided not to keep pressing the issue).

I'll probably share the other comments later after I get feedback on this. What do you think? Am I just being defensive, or do you think their theories on the inferior function are too narrow?

 

[JGirl]

in a word
crap
from a lifelong artist who, without her art, would have gone insane or killed herself.

 

[this is only temporary]

in a word
crap
from a lifelong artist who, without her art, would have gone insane or killed herself.

+1

 

[Billy]

Dont buy into MBTI too deeply, at its core its not even a real science, its severely subjective. Saying INFJs creating art is unhealthy or unnatural is an absurd and idiotic comment.

 

[z523x4gr98j]

My immediate reaction was the same as all of yours, but I guess I needed affirmation because her ideas preyed on my fears. I know that Se often has the negative effect on me that she describes, but I feel like it's different with my art. When I tried to explain this, she more or less said, "You may feel like it's different, but it's not. It's just your evil Se being a sneaky puppet master and letting your Ni think it's in control when it's not."

This was my response to her comment:

Thank you for taking the time to write out such an in-depth response. What you say makes sense to me, and I can definitely relate to this:

“When the inferior Se subconsciously detects ugliness, disharmony, or sensory imperfection in the environment, it sends a coded message (subconsciously up the stack) to dominant introverted intuition that something “out there” is out of whack. The natural instinct or reaction often is to “fix” by “fixing” or “beautify” by “beautifying” – that is to create Se change that will overcome the perceived flaw.”

When creating art, this feels therapeutic to me. When it’s harmful to me is when it’s self-directed. It causes me to have issues with body image. I suppose it’s possible, though, that part of the reason I feel compelled to create art is to compensate for the fact that I can’t beautify myself. But it’s not even close to being the main reason.

Your ideas make sense to me, but is it necessarily a bad thing that my Se takes the driver’s seat sometimes? I’m not always creating art; I allow my Ni to flourish in other pursuits. Do you think it’s possible to have a healthy balance?

While I don’t disagree with you, I also don’t believe that art is more for Se types than Ni types. I have a natural talent, and I’ve had it for as long as I’ve been able to hold a pencil. I’m not going to let that go to waste. But I will be more aware of my process from now on, and experiment with different approaches to art. I’m sure it’s not inherently unhealthy to INFJs or any other type.

I’ve considered a career in art therapy before. Maybe the key is to use art for more of an Fe end than an Se end?

Her response:

To follow up, regarding the question of whether it’s necessarily a bad thing that your Se takes the driver’s seat is a question that perhaps I’ll leave to your discretion to answer for yourself. If one is aware of the tendencies of the inferior function to wreak havoc and is careful to combat that, then, no, I don’t think the damage is very detrimental or that it’s a “bad thing.” For example, even though I largely focus my time and energy on N pursuits, once in a while I’ll still utilize Se (often times it’s my Fe getting sucked in by friends who ask me to make their wedding cakes etc.). But whereas the process of perfecting my Se creations used to control me in the past, I no longer strive for that idealism and I remain open and flexible to imperfection and error.

Truthfully, when I became aware of this issue as pertaining to the inferior function, it sort of “demystified” the process for me, draining the “pleasure” (and I say that in quotes because it brought equal amounts of anxiety and frustration) out of the artistic process. Therefore, I still engage my Se at times, but I take it far less seriously, and I continue to remain alert to the fact that it can overrun me with stress. That’s when I stop.

I can definitely understand how a career in art therapy might be a more healthy manifestation of Se for an INFJ, as long as the focus was away from “perfecting” the “ideal” in the flesh, and more about pure, “agenda-less” expression. I would be careful, however, about rationalizing doing so because of the “Fe” objective which technically still amounts to some measure of jumping the stack since Ni is initially being overlooked.

Only you can truly know if and when your engagement with Se activity begins to border on unhealthy. As an INFJ it should feel fairly intuitive, though the inferior function issue is a demon that none of us is fully immune to. What I can say with a good degree of confidence is that your powers of insight and depth of understanding with regard to perceptions about human nature and the behavioral manifestations re same are naturally extraordinarily good as an INFJ, if you should choose to develop them. The world needs those. I have come to embrace for my health and happiness and for the world generally letting the artisans (Se types) do the execution of the ideas (that Ni types provide) so that I can invest my time and energy into providing the best potential idea (Ni).

I appreciate that she avoids outright telling me that it's bad for me to create art. But I can tell she quietly believes I'll end up becoming disillusioned with it like she was, and that I need to experience it for myself before I will believe her.

That's why I decided not to continue the discussion. She seemed unchanged even after I tried to offer up alternate approaches to art that might better fit her framework. So I figured it was pointless to keep pressing the issue.

I find it kind of sad that she psychologized something she once had a passion for to the point where it became demystified. I don't mean that in a snarky way; it really does make me kind of sad, and wish that she had been able to find a healthier way to continue with her art. She seems to think that the fact that the "magic" of the process can be explained in psychological terms, means it's not "authentic" for INFJs. It could just as easily be explained in psychological terms for Se artists, yet she doesn't think they should give up art because of it.

Another article on the site, The Inferior Function: Traps, Temptations, and Grip Experiences, discusses the same theory about the inferior function, but with a key difference.

As illustrated above, each personality type has its own set of temptations that can lead to grip experiences. The following list describes some common “lies” or “temptations” of the inferior function:

INJs: “Directly beautifying the material world or acquiring wealth (Se) will bring me wholeness.”

The key difference is that "directly beautifying the material world" (creating art) is not said to be bad for INJs, in itself. It's only bad when the INJ does so believing that it will bring them wholeness.

BIG difference!

When I came across the article today, it made everything much clearer to me. Because that's exactly how I act when I'm under stress and the inferior Se comes out. I start wanting to go on clothes shopping sprees (acquire wealth), and I can spend way too much time putting together outfits to wear because I want them to look just so (trying to beautify the physical world). THIS is how my inferior Se manifests; NOT when creating art.

In fact, the more Se manifests in this superficial way, the LESS art I create. I go into a creative slump, and I do all these frivolous, materialistic things, all the while hating myself for it and wishing I were being more productive.

So for me, the creative process is markedly different from my "grip experiences" with Se. In fact, the two are mutually exclusive.

 

[z523x4gr98j]

And, okay, maybe this is kind of an egotistical point to make, but... I have more artistic ability than any SP artist I've ever known (among my peers. Different story when you get up to a professional level, I'm sure). In college, I was probably one of the top three best artists in the art department. And the hands-down best artist that everyone envied with a passion, I believe to also be an INFJ. He's definitely an INxx, at any rate. (The other contender for runner-up that comes to mind is an ENFP).

Not saying that N types make better artists than S types or anything. Only that there's something to be said for such artistic talent in N types. It would be a huge waste for it to go unused.

 

[Matt3737]

I skimmed most of the discussion; it is quite long and in-depth. I will just make one point to see if it is of assistance to you:

But whereas the process of perfecting my Se creations used to control me in the past, I no longer strive for that idealism and I remain open and flexible to imperfection and error.

Their 'argument' is an artwork created to achieve verisimilitude; an attempt to accurately resemble reality. They are caught up in their idealistic pursuit, and it is best not to take it too seriously.

 

[Sai]

bullshit. creating art BAD? O.O

 

[the]

Art. What a word.

 

[Radiantshadow]

Objective statements about a subjective experience is silly.

 

[Gaze]

Can I offer another interpretation?

When she said this:

When the INFJ is “envisioning,” however, there is an implication that he has in mind a clear Se endpoint that he’d like to control and create. There is an implication that he wants artistic (Se) control.

I think she was trying to say that control over Se is not the ultimate goal of the INFJ whereas the Se-dominance typical or expected of artist's goal is to control or engage with the reality it wants to represent. For artists, the process of engaging in art is supposedly a spontaneous in the moment experience (a stereotypically P quality) while INFJs are described as more about pre-thinking about what will be done before it's done. I agree that they are limiting art in their description of what an artist is or should be but it's also an interesting point, to consider intellectually.

 

[Tactical Panda]

If art is part of a balanced and healthy life, even if a quiet one, it seems fine.

If it consumes your ability to actually get out there and live, perhaps you need to strike a better balance.

Common sense should apply more than MBTI in this circumstance, I suspect. Either way, best wishes.

 

[z523x4gr98j]

Their 'argument' is an artwork created to achieve verisimilitude; an attempt to accurately resemble reality. They are caught up in their idealistic pursuit, and it is best not to take it too seriously.

I understand that, but what bothers me is that she doesn't just take her art less seriously now..... She doesn't particularly enjoy it anymore. She only makes cakes when her friends ask her to, and I'm guessing she doesn't paint at all anymore. I don't want that to be me one day. :-/

Can I offer another interpretation?

When she said this:



I think she was trying to say that control over Se is not the ultimate goal of the INFJ whereas the Se-dominance typical or expected of artist's goal is to control or engage with the reality it wants to represent. For artists, the process of engaging in art is supposedly a spontaneous in the moment experience (a stereotypically P quality) while INFJs are described as more about pre-thinking about what will be done before it's done. I agree that they are limiting art in their description of what an artist is or should be but it's also an interesting point, to consider intellectually.

I got what she meant because I've known for a long time that I work differently from most other artists. A lot of times, professors would give assignments where we were expected to use a certain approach to art that didn't work for me at all. In fact, I always noticed that what was harder for the other students usually came easily to me, but what came easily to them would be hard for me.

I had to write an artist statement several months ago in my senior seminar class, and it was all about how I work towards a vision and only enter that spontaneous artistic process after I have a framework in place (usually, a detailed sketch to color over). I talked about how sometimes I envy the artists who can work spontaneously from beginning to end, and bring out the essence of their materials instead of bending them to their vision. But ultimately I wouldn't change my approach to art, because it works for me. And it sets me apart.

Art is a different experience for everyone, and that's how it should be. If her view of art is that it can only be truly experienced by Se types, she's discrediting a lot of great artists. I doubt Van Gogh, MC Escher, or Salvador Dali were S types.

If art is part of a balanced and healthy life, even if a quiet one, it seems fine.

If it consumes your ability to actually get out there and live, perhaps you need to strike a better balance.

Common sense should apply more than MBTI in this circumstance, I suspect. Either way, best wishes.

Thanks for the level-headed advice. In the past year, I've become really involved in the local art community and it's opened all kinds of doors for me. I feel a lot more confident socially, and for the first time feel like I belong to a group. So when you put it that way, art has actually encouraged me to get out there and live more.

 

[Untitled]

Can I offer another interpretation?

When she said this:



I think she was trying to say that control over Se is not the ultimate goal of the INFJ whereas the Se-dominance typical or expected of artist's goal is to control or engage with the reality it wants to represent. For artists, the process of engaging in art is supposedly a spontaneous in the moment experience (a stereotypically P quality) while INFJs are described as more about pre-thinking about what will be done before it's done. I agree that they are limiting art in their description of what an artist is or should be but it's also an interesting point, to consider intellectually.

I don't know about you but I, though with limited experience in visual arts, usually get an "out of the blue" vision of what I want. The idea already presents itself in an intricate form and what I do is just copy it in...er...reality. That's how it works for me. Before this I just take in and mull over things that interest me untill something sparks and the cogs start turning and the idea pops up. I gather all this info, years and years and then at some point in time it combines into a whole that is already pretty ready in my mind, or at least a framework in which I experiment. How is that not Ni? I think it's very Ni. ;D ...kaleidoscope mind and it's secret permutations.

I talked about how sometimes I envy the artists who can work spontaneously from beginning to end, and bring out the essence of their materials instead of bending them to their vision. But ultimately I wouldn't change my approach to art, because it works for me. And it sets me apart.

I think focusing on the tangible materials and their nature instead of your vision would be Se over Ni.
Not that any of this matters. You are you and MBTI is a rough caricature. One system of classification. People don't fit in categories. ;D

 

[z523x4gr98j]

I don't know about you but I, though with limited experience in visual arts, usually get an "out of the blue" vision of what I want. The idea already presents itself in an intricate form and what I do is just copy it in...er...reality. That's how it works for me. Before this I just take in and mull over things that interest me untill something sparks and the cogs start turning and the idea pops up. I gather all this info, years and years and then at some point in time it combines into a whole that is already pretty ready in my mind, or at least a framework in which I experiment. How is that not Ni? I think it's very Ni. ;D ...kaleidoscope mind and it's secret permutations.

Oh, it definitely is Ni, and it's exactly how it works for me too. She wasn't saying that it's not Ni; she was arguing that it's Ni sort of being puppeteered by Se. SP artists typically don't have that initial vision that Ni artists like us have. They're not trying to bring a preconceived Ni vision into reality. They're just playing with materials until something emerges, often a surprise to them. If you read a lot of artist statements, they say something to the effect of "bringing out the natural essence of the materials." That's a very different process from an INFJ artist, who already has the end goal in mind and might sometimes think "why won't the materials do what I want them to do?" instead of just going with the flow.

I think focusing on the tangible materials and their nature instead of your vision would be Se over Ni.

Yeah, that's how SP artists tend to work, I've noticed. I still see what she means, that in a sense I'm attempting to "control Se" to bring my vision into the physical world. But I don't see the harm in it if it's done in a positive way.

 

[Untitled]

[MENTION=933]Seraphim[/MENTION]
But wouldn't some SP artists be in an evil Ni grip then if they had a vision emerge after playing around with materials... Injecting vision in a material thinga-ma-bob ;D I just don't buy what she's saying. I mean it's functions preference order after all. Favor the Ni (vision) or in SP case sensing . I don't even see what would be being purely Ni in the first place, devoid of any Se. Sitting on a mountaintop radiating visions inwardly? Sounds unhealthy to me. You have to ground the flow somehow, or you're just plain impotent with all your visions mulling inside.
I think for me when creativity becomes problematic is if I focus too much on the results and impacts my specific art has. If I want it to have a social or financial impact and get too wrapped up in that...if I were to try and "write a hit song" (<---have a Se type impact...this was sometimes asked of me and I just hated the request. It felt so fake and...err...icky as a thought ) or maybe if an artist was to try and make something fashionable or something that sells rather than what their inner vision dictates is what I'd consider the real pitfall for an INFJ artist. The emotional pressure from colleagues and peers, especially when you're starting out, to deliver something marketable and hip/stylish instead of something perhaps odd and seemingly very unmarketable and personal were the inner pressures I had to deal with in my experience and maybe having that little Se sensibility you kind of have an inkling of what that hip, popular and selling thing may be, but at the same time I think the muses might get upset from such a treachery and cross your INFJ butt off their vision list... ;D
This is how I see the Se inferior pitfall, not in the fact that we craft something tangible, visible or audible. We can't make pretty for the sake of pretty.

 

[z523x4gr98j]

@Seraphim
But wouldn't some SP artists be in an evil Ni grip then if they had a vision emerge after playing around with materials... Injecting vision in a material thinga-ma-bob ;D

I didn't even think of that! But that's a great point. If Ni artists start with the vision and work towards the Se end, Se artists begin with the Se process and work towards an Ni vision. So, you're right... the argument could be made that even Se artists are being controlled by the inferior, when you get down to it.

I don't even see what would be being purely Ni in the first place, devoid of any Se. Sitting on a mountaintop radiating visions inwardly? Sounds unhealthy to me. You have to ground the flow somehow, or you're just plain impotent with all your visions mulling inside.

Exactly. How can it be good to avoid Se entirely? I thought that was the unhealthy thing to do, that we were supposed to try to integrate it.

 

[lightning23]

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I write (which I sort of consider art) and I write differently than most people. I start with the main idea or the message/theme and and extended metaphor and the rest writes itself from there.
I think everyone approaches art differently and every expresses themselves in their own way. Art is a way for people to let their soul breathe, no matter who you are. And breathing, that's definitely healthy.

 

[Trifoilum]

I saw Ti in the reply she gave to you. :| a.k.a, approach with caution.
It's never about wrong or right....

I suggested that if art is not my sole pursuit (I also write a lot to express my Ni ideals, for example), there could be a healthy balance between dominant Ni activities and other activities. She didn't shoot down this idea but didn't really embrace it, either. It's clear that she thinks INJs should try to primarily use Ni at all times.

"But to alter Se by altering Se is a job for ESP types." This just sounds nonsensical to me—to divvy up basic tasks between MBTI types and say "this is a job for S types only." S types will all do it in a certain way. N types will have an entirely different way of approaching it. Can you imagine how stale the art world would be if only one type of personality created art? Art is supposed to speak to all types of people. The art world would be so flat and narrow if only S types contributed to it.

Also, I see no backing at all for her claim that "while it could be argued that you are “technically” using other functions in the process of making Se art, the initial purpose remains the same: to alter Se."

Pin pon.
Unfortunately this article, while it has a good point, has a very biased perspective. And so is she; Both has a clear image of how a type should act / be.
I think their idea of well-developed type is 'with the first function in control of EVERYTHING'. If other functions plays in roles that's directly called as unhealthy while I personally would believe otherwise.
It's funny because the less than good examples are all about 'directly' using one's inferior functions. While the good examples are all about 'using' one's dominant function with the inferior working beneath. It's.....should I say, hierarchical. Which would be understandable.....in theory. In practice, not so much.

The image I had in mind was a despot.

Also, I get a sense of 'experience' in her reply on your reply. (If we're playing the game of assumption, we're playing.)
As in, "I didn't know better back then, but now I see the folly of my mistake. You should too, because you're probably as clueless as I am back then."
She doesn't see / notice / aware of the possibility that people might have been aware with it before. It being, Se's desires. The balance between Ni and Se.

Another article on the site, The Inferior Function: Traps, Temptations, and Grip Experiences, discusses the same theory about the inferior function, but with a key difference.

As illustrated above, each personality type has its own set of temptations that can lead to grip experiences. The following list describes some common “lies” or “temptations” of the inferior function:

INJs: “Directly beautifying the material world or acquiring wealth (Se) will bring me wholeness.”


The key difference is that "directly beautifying the material world" (creating art) is not said to be bad for INJs, in itself. It's only bad when the INJ does so believing that it will bring them wholeness.

BIG difference!

When I came across the article today, it made everything much clearer to me. Because that's exactly how I act when I'm under stress and the inferior Se comes out. I start wanting to go on clothes shopping sprees (acquire wealth), and I can spend way too much time putting together outfits to wear because I want them to look just so (trying to beautify the physical world). THIS is how my inferior Se manifests; NOT when creating art.

In fact, the more Se manifests in this superficial way, the LESS art I create. I go into a creative slump, and I do all these frivolous, materialistic things, all the while hating myself for it and wishing I were being more productive.

So for me, the creative process is markedly different from my "grip experiences" with Se. In fact, the two are mutually exclusive.

Yep. This.

I think the key is obsession.
There are points where people -RELIES- on doing what they like (in this case, art) as...the first measure / instantaneous response towards every problems they have in life.
INJs; have problems? OMG DO SOMETHING ELSE THAT WILL FEEL BETTER REACT REACT REACT (instead on carefully considering it and/or dealing with the problem). And yes, in some ways, doing art can be this.
ITPs; have problems? WHINE ABOUT IT CRITICIZE CRITICIZE (instead on putting logic on which part that is wrong and what can be done about it)
ISJs; have problems? OMG CONFORM ACCEPT CHANGES (instead on trying to consider what, in the upheld belief, was right and worth protecting)
Denial, mixed with overreliance.

Which will be different depending on who you are.
-if- you are using art as your career, I would say that obsession is a good thing......in one way of seeing.
If not, there would be problems; (neglecting life /relationships / work because of art?)

To say INFJs creating art, ANY art, in whatever amount, is unhealthy..../LAUGHS HARD.
Bullshit.

I skimmed most of the discussion; it is quite long and in-depth. I will just make one point to see if it is of assistance to you:

Their 'argument' is an artwork created to achieve verisimilitude; an attempt to accurately resemble reality. They are caught up in their idealistic pursuit, and it is best not to take it too seriously.

I agreed in this. There are differences in trying to fit what we had in mind and trying to resemble reality. I admit sometimes I am caught in details of my art but...meh.

 

[Trifoilum]

Now as per other perspective... allow me to ramble.

Remember that the writer is talking about what they think is 'MBTI Good'.
Even what is 'good' in this case might be different from what you think is good.
Is it emotional roundedness?
Is it emotional balance or stability?
Wholeness / growth?
Money gained?
Status?
or, in terms of MBTI, functional balance?
improving / strengthening the functions?
subduing / controlling them?
Does the writer talk about being 'more your type'? Or more 'less likely to be controlled by your shadow'? Or more 'balancing your type'? More 'accepting your shadow'?

Then, in the context of doing art by itself...Someone might have more than one reasons to make art. And there are indeed many reasons. And nothing wrong with that.
One made art to please people.
One made art to please themselves.
One made art to express their feelings / emotions / thoughts.
One made art to -broadcast- their feelings / emotions / thoughts.
One made art to made pretty things.
One made art to learn.
One made art to teach.

From a perspective of emotional / mental growth, I think, there are what separates art as something building and art as something..distracting.
The question, if we're willing to sidetrack a bit and going meta;
Does it solve the long term problem? Or only a short term bandage?
Is it an attempt to satisfy ego? Id? Superego? Self?
Is it an attempt to seek emotional completion? A method of relieving your burden? Or it's just...a quenching of a thirst?

Does this mean all short term bandages are bad?
Hell fuck no.
Going even more meta; Even what others would call bad can still be good. Engaging in food binging or shopping spree, in an Id kind of way, is good. (In a Superego kind of way? Nope, but following Superego all the time leads you nowhere just as following Id would.) Applied in a certain way, they are good, well, actually satisfying, and definitely deserving.
It's a) when it goes too far, and b) when it goes too long without any real attempt to fix the long term problem, that it starts becoming a problem. A sense of an illusionary oasis; "I eat a lot / fuck a lot / draw a lot / smoke a lot but my problems are still here...maybe I need to do more."

Granted, to continue is not always a bad thing.

To be honest I might be one of the unhealthy case they're talking about. I'm still finding myself obsessed in details... and only details. That's what might make it unhealthy. I am still unable to express my thoughts / emotions and showed it in my drawing..in shapes or colors. Instead I ran away to empty details. Big in style, almost vapid in substance. Art-wise...I want to draw pretty, emotional art, for me.