The Death of Creativity

From FEE.org:

The death of originality in modern life extends from the political to the cultural. This is especially amazing where politics is concerned as there is virtually no issue which is beyond the concern of the federal government. Yet, public discourse is like a worn record stuck on repeat. In time to the biennial electoral cycle, the same tired issues of welfare, regulatory reform and jobs are debated, in the same hackneyed language of politicians calling on the ethos of their party’s most famed members, who in their day had exactly the same debates.

Nothing is ever settled; there is no incentive to do so, for while politics stifles the originality that stands as a threat to its existence, the state is not a producer and has no imagination. Its discretionary judgment is reactive, not proactive. Problem solving requires ingenuity; it is in the state’s interest to perpetuate the most prominent and pressing inequities for it cannot grasp the nuances of subtler injustices.

Having expanded its stifling provenance beyond the bounds of politics, the rest of society stagnates. Political discourse is an obligatory and routine masque; this becomes true of culture as well. Creativity is not unbounded. Originality becomes relative, a matter of reinterpreting the known and safe. Old tropes and messages are recycled in the same manner as political messages.

The result is the emergence of a hierarchy of creativity. Society, working in concert with the state, implicitly endorses appropriate forms of expression. Since culture must evolve but politics is rooted in stasis, the genesis of popular entertainment is really a devolution between an increasingly narrowed choice of old and familiar – and therefore not a threat to the state’s survival – modes of creative expression.

This constant winnowing creates a hierarchy amongst creators which is monistic. The dominant creative modalities can coexist with less prominent artistic forms, but there can be no serious cross-collaboration because the popular carries the blessing of the state while the alternative carries a stigma.

It is no mistake that culture is becoming increasingly fragmented and imitative at the same time all the most authoritative of pundits are obsessed with the problem of a fractured and partisan polity. The former issue drives the latter. Culture is not the primary problem. A cognitive state which wields unbound latitudinous powers is the root cause of the deficit of creativity.  [read more]

The author starts the article with saying that creativity can be the enemy of the State. True, but creativity can be enemy of any establishment—especially if the establishment is afraid of losing power.  Any organization that doesn’t want change is afraid of creative people. The physics community at first didn’t accept Einstein’s theories. Galileo had his resisters too. Even Einstein resisted the scientists who developed quantum theory.

What do creative people represent? Risk. They buck the system. The more there is group think (or a mob mindset) in a social system the more the creative people in the system will be seen as the outsider. And if universities suppress creative or even diverse thoughts not only does this hurt the creative individual, it doesn’t help the university community as a whole.

It also doesn’t help anything when group rights are more important than individual rights.