It's not a bible, hilariously, it's Marxist Ethics by the academy of science of the USSR, institute of external relations by A. F. Siskin.
Oh, haha. I wanted to comment on your setup, that I think it a good example of reasonableness, not presuming the need for a cherried out studio setup to produce good work. HR Giger always said he does his best work when down in the crummy little cellar of his Chur residence. Some stone walls, a huge canvas and some dingy airbrushin' equipment. That's all he needs.
The effect of our immediate environement is interesting, though. Makes me wonder if every artist should pay it any attention, because it seems like a trap sometimes - to get caught up in something futile you sometimes can't really do anything about -OR- if it
would be wise to "optimize" your creative environment, customize it to your personality so as to feel most disposed to creativity the way you intend. And I'm trying to point that we typically don't understand would be optimizing our offices, since everyone is different and may require optimizing in different ways - what
might be helpful? I constantly fall short of my own creative intentions. Sure, lack of skill the obvious reason, but is my office partially to blame? Does it make me lazy? Does it distract me? Obviously certain mental factors play a large role in our creative workflows - some days we don't feel motivated/inspired, other days we experience sharp spikes of serindipity. Helm, earlier you commented in this thread some 'pain is needed to produce brilliance', though a sarcastic comment which I think you may've meant partly seriously, I think there's some truth in that. I seemed to be more adventurous and self-motivated when I all I had was pencils . . . in a way. Now with a full "digital suite" of tools at my fingertips, I value them less than I did my favorite kind of pencils back then. Maybe the idea that I feel less involved in my art than then because I couldn't digitally generate imagery like I can now, with modern methods of expediting projects, leeches away from a percentage of the pride in my own accomplishments, thus failing to compel me to keep groping for more in the unknown darkness that is each person's own ability yet to be unearthed. Because isn't the reason we all persist in creative endeavors driven by the need to answer the question, "What can I really do/ What can I accomplish?" I know if I don't consciously ask myself the question at the outset of a new project, I interrogate myself subconsciously, because, maybe out of vanity, I always want to know good I am, what I can do, etc. It's a source of self-worth/pride. Evidence: those that feel they're not good at anything special feel they're missing something and will seek out new goofy hobbies, or attempt to hone some ability just so they have some obscure talent superior to others, to fill that inherent human need.
The thrust of this post may have spun out of control into undiscernable ambiguity but I only mean to put out there: In the quest for artistic excellence
how much does our "real desktop" affect us. And if it does exude significant effects,
can we use that to our advantage by determining how our environment should be configured, based on our individual disposition, to be most conducive for our creative ambitions?