Why cash and copyright are bad news for creativity

Thu, 22 Jan 2015 12:35:30 +1100

Andrew Pam <xanni [at] glasswings.com.au>

Andrew Pam
<http://theconversation.com/why-cash-and-copyright-are-bad-news-for-creativity-34696>

"Imagine you were asked to write a law that encouraged creativity. What
would it look like? Whatever your answer, it’s pretty clear that it
wouldn’t look like copyright."

More thoughts on copyright.  Executive summary:  Awards, grants and
income support encourage creativity.  Commercial exploitation not so
much.  Via Colin Mackay.

Share and enjoy,
                *** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net                   Andrew Pam
http://www.xanadu.com.au/                 Chief Scientist, Xanadu
http://www.glasswings.com.au/             Partner, Glass Wings
http://www.sericyb.com.au/                Manager, Serious Cybernetics

Comment via email


Thu, 22 Jan 2015 14:38:59 +1100

Katherine Phelps <muse [at] glasswings.com.au>

Katherine Phelps
This article is so much hogwash.

They make so many unfounded conclusions. They tested people on how well
they did when they were given cash to perform a certain task. Not all of
those tasks were creative. Everyone did worse when they weren't
personally motivated to do the thing.

So what was their conclusion? Giving artists money depletes creativity.

Perhaps not having control over the material depletes creativity.
Perhaps having someone standing over you expecting you to produce
reduces creativity. Perhaps power relations over freedom obliterates
creative drive.

Perhaps the solution isn't to stop giving artists money. Perhaps
everyone does better when everyone's needs are met first, and then
people choose to work and contribute in whatever way suits them.

On 22/01/15 12:35, Andrew Pam wrote:
<http://theconversation.com/why-cash-and-copyright-are-bad-news-for-creativity-34696>

"Imagine you were asked to write a law that encouraged creativity. What
would it look like? Whatever your answer, it’s pretty clear that it
wouldn’t look like copyright."

More thoughts on copyright.  Executive summary:  Awards, grants and
income support encourage creativity.  Commercial exploitation not so
much.  Via Colin Mackay.

Share and enjoy,
              *** Xanni ***

Comment via email

Thu, 22 Jan 2015 15:17:17 +1100

Andrew Pam <xanni [at] glasswings.com.au>

Andrew Pam
On 22/01/15 14:38, Katherine Phelps wrote:
So what was their conclusion? Giving artists money depletes creativity.

That's not what I took from it.  My understanding was that making money
through commercialisation was less encouraging than getting awards,
grants or simply income support, none of which came with the same
pressures to make what sells well.  That said, your points are also
excellent:

Perhaps not having control over the material depletes creativity.
Perhaps having someone standing over you expecting you to produce
reduces creativity. Perhaps power relations over freedom obliterates
creative drive.

Perhaps the solution isn't to stop giving artists money. Perhaps
everyone does better when everyone's needs are met first, and then
people choose to work and contribute in whatever way suits them.

Obviously artists need an income, just like everyone else!  The article
is about the difference between internal and external motivation, and
while I don't accept that external motivation necessarily results in
less creativity - sometimes it can provide valuable feedback about what
the audience is actually interested in, and therefore help shape the
works so that they better reach the audience - I think it's reasonable
to suggest that the present situation where those very few artists who
achieve financial success are largely those who are the most commercial
could probably be improved upon by offering more support to other
artists who could really use the support.

Cheers,
        *** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net                   Andrew Pam
http://www.xanadu.com.au/                 Chief Scientist, Xanadu
http://www.glasswings.com.au/             Partner, Glass Wings
http://www.sericyb.com.au/                Manager, Serious Cybernetics

Comment via email

Thu, 22 Jan 2015 15:34:21 +1100

Katherine Phelps <muse [at] glasswings.com.au>

Katherine Phelps
"Not amateur in the sense that they don’t know what they’re doing — no,
'amateur' in the sense that the people doing it are doing for the love
of it, not for the creativity-depleting cash..."

This shows hopeless ignorance of the actual circumstances of very real
every day artists.

On 22/01/15 15:17, Andrew Pam wrote:
On 22/01/15 14:38, Katherine Phelps wrote:
So what was their conclusion? Giving artists money depletes creativity.
That's not what I took from it.  My understanding was that making money
through commercialisation was less encouraging than getting awards,
grants or simply income support, none of which came with the same
pressures to make what sells well.  That said, your points are also
excellent:

Comment via email

Thu, 22 Jan 2015 15:43:00 +1100

Andrew Pam <xanni [at] glasswings.com.au>

Andrew Pam
On 22/01/15 15:34, Katherine Phelps wrote:
"Not amateur in the sense that they don’t know what they’re doing — no,
'amateur' in the sense that the people doing it are doing for the love
of it, not for the creativity-depleting cash..."

This shows hopeless ignorance of the actual circumstances of very real
every day artists.

Fair point.

Cheers,
        *** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net                   Andrew Pam
http://www.xanadu.com.au/                 Chief Scientist, Xanadu
http://www.glasswings.com.au/             Partner, Glass Wings
http://www.sericyb.com.au/                Manager, Serious Cybernetics

Comment via email

Home E-Mail Sponsors Index Search About Us