Yves Smith — Cash or Copyright or Real Creativity?

Yet another important, counterintuitive finding…at least if you think that people respond only or mainly to economic incentives. Not to give the punchline away, but the success of open source software from a technical standpoint is one supporting datapoint. Can readers think of others? 

By Dan Hunter, Dean, Swinburne Law School at Swinburne University of Technology. Originally published at The Conversation

Naked Capitalism
Cash or Copyright or Real Creativity?
Yves Smith

Yet another important, counterintuitive finding…at least if you think that people respond only or mainly to economic incentives. 

The interests aspect of value as interest is much broader than economic interests. Value is also a broader concept than interest in many ethics and value theories, and psychological and sociological studies of motivation bear this out. Human being are not only more complicated psychologically and socially than self-interest alone can account for, but also more complex and interrelated.

This relates to the rather complex concept of human freedom. There are three key aspects of freedom. The first is freedom from constraint and limitation. The second is freedom to choose and to express oneself. The third is freedom for self- determination and self-actualization. Rights are linked to these three aspects of freedom.

While all are integral aspects of human freedom, freedom for is perhaps most significant for both creativity and also political self-determination.

Most significantly, freedom is fundamental to the spiritual or metaphysical dimension in contrast to the physical and material. Therefore, it is a moral category rather than simply a descriptive one. Freedom is not explained entirely by observations about its manifestation in life. It is a potential that underlies human complexity and is the basis for development and innovation.

Yves asks for example. One in particular comes to mind, since it is paradigmatic. A friend was a "starving artist" until she was discovered by a prominent gallery owner who successfully sold many of her paintings. But after some time, she realized that her creativity was being undermined by the process. 

First, she was required to schmooze with the patrons at shows, which was not her thing. She didn't like selling herself and felt that her work should stand by itself. But that was part of the deal in getting promoted.

Secondly and more importantly, she got tired of painting the same style and want to switch, but the gallery owner balked. Why kill the goose that lays the golden egg, he wondered. Her answer was that she either kill the goose or kill her creativity.

So she is not as well off as she might have been, but she is happier and producing more innovative work, following her muse regardless of where it leads financially.

Most really creative people have known haven't given a rat's ass about money. Some became wealthy in spite of it. Others didn't, but most were happy and self-fulfilled anyway. On the other hand, some give up and either sell out or get a job, while others are bummed that the world doesn't appreciate them sufficiently. But that's often not about the money but lack of recognition.

Of course, this is not say that creativity and finanical interest are either never related or mutually exclusive. Financial interest can inhibit or kill creativity, and absence of financial interest is not a necessary condition for high creativity. Entrepreneurs are often highly creative people as are designers, engineers and advertising people, for example. And most successful firms innovate by introducing new products and expanding line, as well as re-inventing themselves with changing conditions.