Cashless creativity
Philip Patston examines humanity's obsession with money and wonders whether the creative sector is open to leading a vision of abundance rather than scarcity.
* * *
Have you ever considered a world without money?
Society the world over is ruled by the monetary system. It is a system based on debt and interest, scarcity and profit. It pervades every institution, from education to entertainment, religion to politics, law to sport. We measure just about everything we do in financial terms. Even the most sacrosanct of institutions - marriage - is, at its core, a financial transaction created to combine financial identities. Money makes the world go round, money is the root of all evil and money changes everything.
I don't really believe in evil to tell the truth, I was just reciting cliches. But our financial system is corrupt. If you want a beginners guide to money I thoroughly recommend the movies Zeitgeist and Zeitgeist:Addendum – both are available, free, at www.zeitgeistmovie.com. These documentary films provide a fascinating and, at times, alarming account of how big business, particularly the banking business, is the puppeteer behind politics, religion, education, law and all the institutions that make up established society.
Even art and creativity.
I don't know about you, but I've always struggled with the business side of my work. Many of the people and organisations I work with don't have a lot of money and can't afford to pay my usual costs, even when I discount them. And I have the dilemma that, the less I charge, the more work I have to do. So money is often a barrier to, rather than an enabler for, my work.
What the Zeitgeist Movement proposes is a resource-based rather than a money-based system. Their proposal is that if you take money out of the equation and manage resources well, there is enough for everyone in the first, second and third worlds to significantly improve their standard of living. Technology, which is often stifled by money, could be freed up to solve many of the world's social and environmental problems by developing, for example, crash-proof cars and geothermal energy.
A world without money is hard to imagine. Most people would argue that human beings have an innate greed that would create havoc if money or at least some form of barter or trade did not control our desire for more. But Zeitgeist filmmaker Peter Joseph and his colleagues believe that this greed is learnt behaviour, given that civilisation has, for millennia, been governed by a philosophy of scarcity that creates the need for such exchange-based systems.
They believe that human civilisation could relearn an attitude of abundance and emergence to replace our existing mindset of scarcity and establishment.
It seems to me that artists, entertainers and creatives could be instrumental in leading this change in paradigm. So many of us already see money as secondary to our passion to create beauty, happiness and wonder. Imagine if our basic needs were well taken care of, so that we didn't have to charge for what we did in order to eat, have shelter and enjoy life to the full? Imagine if the only decision we had to make is whether we had the time and energy to work, not whether we could find a paying customer? And imagine if the rewards were the delight of entertaining and amazing, rather than the money, burdened with accounting and tax and financial administration?
Do we as a sector have the courage and foresight to even begin imagining such a system? Can we dream it, without worrying how, or if, or what if?
I'd like to think so. Do you?
Comments
This a very interesting post. I recently wrote about money/economy and how the system is only 3000 years old and we got quite far without it through barter and other systems, and now we are beholden to it. So i found this very interesting.
Whilst on one hand I like this idea of 'abundance' and it is obviously true that we can now provide for all of us to a reasonable degree. I feel that this idea of re-training humanity to think differently (Different to what? - Our innate survival instincts) and complete revision of society and economy, just to make it easier for artists to do what they want , regardless of demand or quality or or practicality is both laudable and laughable. Much in the same way that many artists consider their artwork , in terms of the vexing issue of pricing, both 'priceless' and 'worthless'.
Your idealism once again leads artists away from valuing themselves realistically, which is the way to be valued realistically by others. It also further enshrines some of the more indulgent tendencies that artists (not creatives in general) have towards being valued and recompensed accordingly for what we/they do and the aversion to presenting and communicating themselves in a creative and effective manner for the rest of society. Graphic Designers have no problem equating what they do with a value and have no qualms in seeking that - Why do artists?
Having spent years advocating and assisting artists and also attempting to be one, I am all too aware of the difficulties for artists in dealing with business and the difficulties of business etc. in dealing with artists. Many artists have as unreal expectations of business/sponsors/patrons/civic governance as business etc. does of the artists. artists think that business/government etc. should give them heaps of money/opportunity to do what they think best, based on a loose representation of a vague notion of an idea. Business etc. thinks artists are'nt professional and do everything just for love. When are artists going to stop playing the victim, stop asking for special dispensation for 'their gift'? Can you righteously say that what we do is better than what a plumber does, or a lawyer? Are we better people? Are we more valuable?Why do we need special help, why should what we choose to spew out of ourselves largely for our own satisfaction, (not to make the world a better place) be valued by others?
Money is a tool like all tools, it is how you use it that counts. Money is a way of copmparing the value between apples and oranges and up until now we haven't thought of a better one and ideals like communism, wherein everyone gets the same entitlements and rights, whatever their station have't yet worked, despite some serious stalinist attempts at re-training the masses.
The fact is the idea that 'if everything was free, we wouldn't need money' is fantastic but my experience tells me that people dont respect what they don't in some way earn. Charge nothing get abused, Charge $1 and get $100 respect. If nothing was valued, nothing would have any value.
Just thoughts anyway. I used to think we were all equal and we could all share and that everything should be accessible and free. Experience has shown me otherwise, we are clearly not alll equal, dont contribute equally, it's against our natural instincts to share unless with our family or people upon whom our survival depends.
It is tempting and commendable to wish the world would change for the better and to do something about it. I like you will try and further that where possible but for now, I am going to do my utmost to communicate my creative ideas as effectively and pragmatically as possible, in the world now, today, as is. Thats a real creative challenge!
I always thought that artists should be creative, practical, aware, empirical, capable and most of all highly-adaptive and able to improvise, seeking opportunity and finding creative ways to sieze it.
Alas many of us can only be that on paper and our own paper at that.
Perhaps it us who needs our attitude re-adjusted?
22 August 2009 - 17:48 PM
From: Valerie
Thanks for the Cashless creativity posting. I have been having thoughts along these lines myself.
"The love of money is the root of all evil" is the proverb as I know it. And I am greatly concerned at how much war and armaments have been promoted by those who seek financial gain.
I am also saddened at the thought of the number of art projects, performance projects, etc that are shelved or discontinued because of a need for "profitability" in cash terms.
When I read your thoughtful article I felt a peaceful, joyful feeling that gave rise to hope - I'd like to be part of such a change and thank you for proposing it in such a forum.
22 August 2009 - 18:09 PM
Thanks Neil and Valerie.
In response to your comment Neil, I'm not suggesting this way of thinking as a cop-out for artists because we don't value our work in financial terms. Quite the opposite. I'm talking about a re-valuation of all forms of work, away from financial gain, towards a more purposeful paradigm of creative value, and asking creatives to lead this change.
I've started a forum topic, under "Mapping the Future of the Arts" for those who may want to discuss and even implement tangible ideas to create this change.
piki d
The whole striving poor artist has been a myth that has always puzzled me and as I continue my studies I realise that intuitive conflict may be attributed to the fact that the equvalent to the artists in the Maori world were the tohunga and they were regarded highly in society, and never went without in materialist matters. These men were prosperous, unfortunately, many equate prosperity to monetry wealth these days.
However I will confess I would never limit ny financial income to my art and even with my art, I trust my art find who they want to be with and if money exchanges hand in doing so, I think maybe that's what I needed at that stage that would justified its value to the new owner.
The Zeitgeist Movement you talk of sounds like a bartering system, which is simply an old method of trade. To be honest I believe it is a method that in current economic climate, I see more and more people participating in.