The idea that genius and money are inseparably connected is one that might induce immediate contradictory reactions. Just like many people, I am also made uncomfortable by the notion that people, if poor, cannot demonstrate genius. It seems that our gut instinct in today’s society is to respond to this idea saying, “There is no correlation; anyone can be anything regardless of their wealth (or lack thereof)!” But if we really take a close gander at things, we might find that more wealthy people tend to be more prominent artists, writers, and scholars. We also might look at life and conclude that the “demonstration of genius” is more readily found in those who do not have to fight and give their all just for basic survival (and we all know what a crucial role wealth plays in basic survival). But what does this prove, and what is genius, anyway?...
In A Room of One’s Own, Virginia Woolf uses similar evidence to argue that money and genius are connected, or at least with regards to women and fiction. Woolf discusses how historically, a lack of money and privacy have prevented women from writing with genius. According to Woolf, for women to not be slavishly dependent on men, and therefore to have genius, several requirements must be met; one of them being possessing money. In my opinion, Woolf is certainly in the right saying that without money, historically, women produce less publicly known literary works of “genius,” and that money can certainly be a helpful medium for genius to flourish. This is due to the fact that it is money which makes it much easier to secure the basic necessities of life and publish work and make it known. However, this in no way means that money is required to have genius. One can only infer from the influence of money on writing that it is a heavy determining factor in the development of the display and demonstration of genius, but certainly not the actual possession of genius. After all, who says that you even have to prove your genius-ness to actually be one?
But what exactly does it mean to say that genius and money are connected? Woolf has proved her point in the case of women and writing, but what about all other forms that genius can take? And honestly, what qualifies as genius? How is it measured? Who decides how it is measured? Can survival be a demonstration of genius in and of itself? In a world where most of the wealth is concentrated in the small upper classes, does that mean that there are substantially less geniuses in the lower class? What is genius?!?!?!
These questions that arise from the idea that genius and money are inseparably connected stem from the fact that “genius” is a relative term. Therefore, any manner of interpreting it must be relative as well. This means openness to the interpretation of the idea that genius and money are inseparably connected. It is my personal opinion that genius can blossom more and be more evident because of money, but genius can certainly prosper without any money at all (it just may go more unnoticed). Any correlation between genius and money just proves that the two elements are as connected as every other element in our super-connected spider web of a world (just not inseparably). All parts of life can affect any other part, so of course money may have some influence on genius, but not definitively. Additionally, because we are all different, and more than one person can be a genius, it is safe to say that genius may come out, or be demonstrated in an unlimited amount of ways. Therefore, genius cannot be limited to one type, making it influenced by, but not determined by money.
Additional Note: Done by the original due date. Yeah.
Additional Note: Done by the original due date. Yeah.
Good Sam.
ReplyDelete