Today I'm going to talk about creativity. I don't really have any more to add on the two topics de jeur and frankly I'm going inside out wondering if Brexit will leave us starving.
Creativity, regardless of the field of expression (music, painting, etc), is the compulsion to express oneself. To bring into being that which was imagined or idealised. It needn't be something wholly unique, in fact ideas are only ever inspired by others. Are there any truly original thoughts? It doesn't really matter. The point is that creativity, as discussed here, is a compulsion. For a person so minded it is a necessity. If one cannot express oneself then one is chained.
Thus it is extremely disturbing to me that our society eschews avenues and outlets. For a creative person - and I do not judge creators as superior or inferior - it is frustrating that we do not take such things more seriously. Especially given how wealthy some, perhaps few, can become. Not that I value commercial success as the standard, but that our society does.1
Consider people out of work who are creators. Indeed, if my experience is any indication, the majority of those out of work, long term, probably are creatively minded. It is as if our society has no use for such people. Coupled with our difficulties fitting in to what society does find acceptable life can be quite difficult. I don't believe it has to be this way.
Think about how much money is spent 'helping' the unemployed, and the sick. Money that serves to fuel what is little more than a gravy train. Instead of going solely to the pockets of private companies to run whatever scheme is currently in vogue, why don't we invest in the people themselves. Why not fund people to have the tools or training they require. I don't believe that is unreasonable in light of the existence of these schemes and the parasitical enterprises that run them. Organisations who wouldn't exist, nor need to, otherwise.
Of course that will not happen in our society. Excuses would be made about how the money would inevitably be wastde on booze or gambling or whatever vice the state assumes of the least in society - vices it profits from. There are many ways this could be done though: why not have a scheme to allow people access to expensive software for example. Musical software is phenomenally overpriced, but a musician could be given free access, say for a couple of years, to such. In that time perhaps he creates something that sells enough to buy permanent access. That's just one idea off the top of my head. The same could apply for musical instruments. I think it's ridiculous that professional musicians 'collect' guitars and the like. In so doing they hoard them and make them, and similar models, really expensive because of the celebrity endorsement. This is just selfish.
Creative output could be shared through special media platforms. Unemployed artists could be showcased, their work accessible digitally. Patrons could even pay, or leave a tip to support the scheme and the service, and, ultimately, the creators.
Again this is just me spitballing. The point is to bypass the current capitalist model. The one that gives rise to the existence of work/welfare schemes. Keeps the unemployed enslaved through welfare as wage systems, emboldened by the simple fact there will never be enough work to go around. Thus the existence of the reserve army of labour, used to maintain low wages. An ever present threat created by a working class divided. Why is it acceptable for organisations to spring up and profit from the existence of, for example, the creative unemployed but not for them to receive help directly?
That is my question.
No comments:
Post a Comment