This kind of follows on from the last post but one, which was inspired by the Final Bullet post, but I'm unhitching the carriages on this train of thought, this post should in no way be considered as a response, intervention or critique of that post or subsequent FB posts, I'm just going off on my own tangent in light of my own stuff. And it's a dislocated thinking-through, not a step-by-step argument.
Why is creativity good?
I can think of two, non-mutually exclusive reasons.
A] It's intrinsically good, an irreducible component of a good life, in some kind of Aristotelean sense
B] It's instrumentally good, there are always problems to be solved, there are things that really should change and we need creativity for that to happen.
Like I say, these can both be true. Also, from each it follows that we need to nurture spaces for creative people and creative activity, because the logic of capitalism will probably rationalise it away in the process of eating itself. But which kind of spaces, and how?
For-profit creatives and non-profit creatives, something something reciprocity economies
If we mostly follow A], then maybe we arrive at a kind of reciprocal, gift-type economy arrangement where I support your creative thing and you support my creative thing, and thus we are supporting Creativity and alternative, non-commercialised spaces. That sounds cool to me, I think you can probably have that without everything becoming too indulgent and sucky, people can still exercise taste judgements.
If we mostly follow B], then at some point we need to reconcile creative spaces with actual prospects for problem solving or social change. We should keep a very loose hand on the tiller, but there will be an underlying logic of investment and return. Doesn't have to be financial investment and return!! But some sense that the common good will increase, outside of the exercise of creativity for the sake of its own enjoyment. There is a "for-profit" element.
Changing things vs inspiring change
I spoke earlier about the "unanchored optimism" of some in the non-profit creative community. I suppose I mean more that there is often a sense of
deferred optimism embedded in the various projects, mash-ups, products, memes. Look at this thing I've made - it will 'suggest new possibilities', 'open up a new way of looking at the world', 'inspire new approaches', 'prompt us to rethink' etc etc. I'm being very broad brush here, but I think this is a common feature. It creates a kind of circularity, or deferment. "Do/look at this creation because creativity".
What kind of creativity does actually change things? Consumer tech. It changes things in mostly banal, sometimes terrible ways, but it unquestionably induces behavioural change among the people exposed to it. It is pushing us towards new forms of social relations - ask anyone who has internet dated. There is a perceived "for-profit" element for the user, even if that profit is literally saving three minutes queuing at Subway by ordering ahead with an app. And from that flows great financial profits to the for-profit creative.
Back to the reciprocal economy
I first started thinking about this after the very funny
New York magazine takedown of Brooklyn's faux-hyper-localised culture, described as something like "a borough of 1 million people, part of a 21st century global financial and media capital, pretending that it is an 18th century village". There was a Brooklyn goods store that wouldn't stock Brooklyn Lager because it is made slightly outside of Brooklyn, and an anecdote about a guy wanting to make local Brooklyn pickles but agonising over the question of whether to import cucumbers during the NINE MONTHS OF THE YEAR when they can't be grown in Brooklyn.
Anyway this notion of urban localism seemed interesting - I wondered from an economic standpoint whether it would less ridiculous if taken to its natural conclusion. Sure, all the artisanal stuff seems overpriced, but if we were
all artisans selling overpriced stuff to each other, would it not balance out? And then we all escape boring corporate capitalism by creating a new economy through sheer force of will - through a type of Great Refusal?
Almost certainly not for many obvious reasons related to the cost of raw materials. But the thought experiment becomes more interesting when you apply it to the economy of ideas and the economy of attention, where the raw materials are cheaper and more evenly distributed. Can a new economy of creativity be forged, through sheer commitment to the cause of Creativity and opposition to the reductive forces of corporate capitalism, that will operate on non-profit, reciprocal principles and spread creative legitimation and self-actualisation to the many, not the few? What are the barriers to this? What infrastructure has to be in place? What does that commitment look like? Does crowd-funding have something to do with it?
An aside: The Lost Lectures
A while ago I heard about the Lost Lectures, where you pay about £10 in advance and then they announce the venue, lineup etc on the day by text message. I was so excited by the idea I emailed them to be put on the mailing list, and bought tickets within minutes of receiving first ticket alert.
A few days before the event I realised I had been taken in. I was looking on the website at past events, it was all quirky speakers e.g. a man who went around the world interviewing people while they sat in trees. You know, to "gain a different perspective", to "see things differently". I was going to pay for the privilege, just because they'd wrapped some bullshit 'speakeasy', fake-scarcity ribbon around the whole enterprise. Just that week, I'd been for
free to a Gresham College lecture where the UK's foremost scholar of Keynesian economics described in detail how classical economists had sewn up the academy and suppressed dissenting schools of thought. That really did make me see things differently! I let my tickets go unused. Tree wanker.
The commodification of inspiration
Is that the barrier? If you're not selling/promoting actual change, actual utility, but possible inspiration towards people's own self-directed, self-created change - a deferred optimism - will people pay money for that? Maybe, in some circumstances. But should they? Or is that against the whole spirit of the thing - should it be reciprocal? I mean, if we're just doing it to mutually reinforce each other, rather than trying to solve a particular problem.
Anyway I warned you that I wasn't going to build a proper argument and I've stayed true to my promise!
