Is creative work a basic human want?

"The need for creative work is a fundamental element of human nature" is a truism accepted by leftists to help justify change in political systems and power structures.

Chomsky opened his famous debate with Foucault in 1971 with this very observation.



From there he goes to the attendant need for demolishing power structures that reduce people to mere cogs in a machine. But ...

I don't know that the premise is true for most people. It's probably true for most kids (but not all ... some would prefer to play sports or play with toy trucks), and it's true for a certain percentage of adults. But others just want to work in commerce or government or agriculture or ranching.

If it is NOT true, I think much of the justification of leftist politics loses thrust.

They have other bases for reordering society, which never resonate with me, but this "unleash the creativity that yearns to manifest in every human being" seems on particularly shaky ground.

This all came up in a family discussion of how much little kids like to draw and watercolor, especially in community with others. They do seem in heaven. Is it a primordial and serious urge that needs to be satisfied? Does it have political implications?

 

Yes, it's pure and unadulterated bullsh!t. The fatuous imaginings of those who never had to wonder where the next meal was coming from, and so could afford to lose themselves in 'art'. Remaining eternal children, basically.

It's these incredibly inappropriate (to the vast majority) ideas which underpin the concept of welfare and universal basic income in the First World. Selling those who can least afford it, the idea that they're entitled and safe to indulge themselves. Teach the once-independent peasant that he can afford to stop striving to 'do art', because Govt will feed him. When salvation doesn't arrive (because it was never going to, obviously), he rapidly sinks to serfdom. Freakishly sinister and clever, no matter how you angle it.

Never ever mistake these 'altruists' for decent human beings.

 

As for the importance of art in the ordinary life, I'd say not very.

Art is important, but it can be enjoyed as part and parcel of utility. Embellishment of utility items is more than enough art for the vast majority. The beautiful piece of furniture. The well designed house. The beautiful room. The pretty and productive garden. A lovely print hanging on the wall. The old acoustic piano still holding a tune.

The production of art, ditto. Embellish that piece of furniture, plant your vegetables in aesthetically pleasing rows, design beautiful rooms, practice your piano. And if you have time after all your chores are done, sketch something purely for the enjoyment.

 

Is creativity limited to art?

 

It depends on how you define art. I do think they were advocating for worker freedom to innovate on the job as much as "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

But even that -- the independent right to innovate -- is a childish notion. The owner of the donut shop wants his customers happy, and they are happiest when they get the same exact product every single day, without exception or variation. That's the reason they go to that shop: "I hate going in to work today, but at least I know my donut will be ... wtf?

... 'Joe, what the hell's up with my donut? Purple sprinkles????'

'Yeah, sorry Mac, the workers collectivized and decided to celebrate Pride Month that way. What can I do? I'm just the patriarchal capitalist pig owner."

 

I'd agree with him were it not for the inclusion of the word "work" (which seems to be where the specific political angle was added).

I think creativity in general is a fundamental element of human nature. Creative intelligence - the ability to take what we know and imagine what could be - is a key element in what makes humans different from other animals and so we have developed a natural instinct to develop, train and practice that. We can also instinctively use it when it isn't really necessary. That is why we see patterns in clouds or how some optical illusions work.

Creativity can come in all sorts of different shapes and forms though. It certainly doesn't have to come from our work, though I'd expect that even the most bland and basic jobs will still have elements of creativity (by design or added by individual workers) even if we don't consciously notice them. Regardless, there is always more to life than work, and we'll all get elements of creativity from those other parts of our lives, again a combination of big obvious ones and the small subconscious ones.

So, I don't think it impacts politics in the manner that was being suggested here, though it's still very relevant, since a key aspect of successful politics (and successful government, which is sadly quite different) is understanding what makes people tick.

 

Very important observation and truth!

Survival (that mode of living we First Worlders sneer at) is 99.9% repetition, not 'innovation'. It was the ego born of privilege, which corrupted our capacity to accept that.

 

All through human history, creativity has been a driving force among humans. Early humans only spent 20 hours a week on gathering food, far less than what modern humans spends on getting food on their table. What did they do in that spare time? A lot of "art". They made music, danced, acted, painted and improved their tools. Creativity is what drives invention and exploration. It gave us writing which in turn allowed us to store our knowledge, which leads eventually to you reading this right now. Look at some of biggest corporations, what are they selling? Disney, Google, Apple, Facebook... they are all selling entertainment.

So no, creativity is not a liberal conspiracy to control the world roflol: I hope you guys are not being serious) but it truly is a fundamental part of human nature.

 

Nope, in fact, I'd argue that the overwhelming majority of creativity has nothing to do with art.

 

1) It has existed as part of the human experience, but it has never trumped survival. An adjunct to survival sure, but never above it.

2) Where did you get that 20 hours a week figure from? Subsistence farming (the majority lifestyle for thousands of years) is probably more like 12 hour days, seven days a week. More importantly, that singing, music, dancing, painting etc was adjunctive, not done for its own sake. It was ritual, supersitious, religious, etc etc. It was art with a practical purpose, not art for arts sake. VERY different proposition.

 

If the idea that people want to be creative is not true for all people, perhaps the idea that people want the exact same product everyday is also not true for all people.

 

Necessity is the mother of invention.

What a bunch of communists!

 

I dunno. I think everyone needs to be creative to be happy, but I dont think everyone has to get paid for their creativity to be happy. While its true that the happiest people figure out how to get paid doing something they enjoy, lots of people do boring jobs to support a creative lifestyle outside of work. And theres a lot of work that no one is ever going to enjoy ...but still has to get done.

 

This thread makes me want to strip naked, put flowers in my hair and sing in the mud.

You wanna see?

 

I might be able to find the study regarding that 20 hours a week figure, but that info is for hunting/gathering, pre-agriculture, not farming. Farming/agriculture required much more work, but also granted more stability/survivability than hunting/gathering. The industrial revolution meant not as many people had to work in agriculture. Essentially, in order of work hours, from lowest to highest, it goes hunting/gathering, then industrialism, then agriculture.

I'll be honest, I haven't watched the video yet because I have a hard time tolerating either of these guys. But I think I understand the argument. Capitalism = more specializing and alienation from one's work. There is truth to that, just as it is also true that this same process has lead to more efficiency, productivity, and standard of living. As with all decision points, there's a tradeoff. Thankfully, technological advancement means there are far more creative career options than there were during either the agricultural age or the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution. I don't need communism or socialism to give me the means of production. My laptop is one of the most potent means of production that has ever existed.

There is more potential for creative career paths now than there has ever been.

 

"The need for creative work is a fundamental element of human nature." Yes it is. It is fundamental to our ability to adapt. To overcome problems humans face and technological innovation. A side effect of creativity are the arts. Why do we do art? Why do peacocks have tail feather displays? I bet Mick Jagger has spread his DNA over more of the world than you. Creative talent increases ones social standing.

Chomsky's anarcho-syndicalism is a bit pollyannaish. He thinks a rank and file union member is not just another cog in the wheel to use his hyperbole? What unleashes creativity are protected basic human rights; free speech, free association, right to assembly, religious freedom, controlled free markets....

 

For the love of mercy, no.

 

AW, COME ON !!!!!!

 

Walter Mitty was a creative sort. Never did him much good.

Work is work. Doing a job your 16 year old self would crave when you are 30 may be a little boring after all those years.

 

1) Nothing trumps survival, but survival is not 24/7/365. Even the poorest people can sing songs and dance.
2) Sorry, I should have stated that I was talking about pre-agricultural societies. The original study I was referencing is paywalled, but I found an article in the Washington Post that quotes parts of it. https://nypost.com/2019/05/20/modern-farmers-work-harder-than-cavemen-did-study. And what does it matter if the art was done for religious purposes? Do you think that spirits actually forced the people at Lascaux to paint those animals, or Michelangelo (the artist, not the turtle) did his art just for money and/or the glory of God? Heck, even religion itself is an act of creativity as someone had to come up with the idea of the gods and spirits, unless you think that all mythology is real. Creativity doesn't even have to have an end product. Looking for figures in clouds or in the stars is creativity.

 

People are happiest when they get the same exact product every single day, without exception or variation? Bovine excrement! If that was true why do new products even exist? Why does Applebee's come out with new menu items? Hell, the automotive and tech industries would have gone broke by now, if that was true. Also, it is not the collectivized workers that put the purple sprinkles on the donuts for Pride Month, it is the capitalistic shop owner trying to sell more donuts by playing on people's emotions and virtue signaling.

 

Yes, as a general rule, most people prefer tradition and regularity. Obviously there are exceptions. But it explains why the "New Coke" was such a disaster, and the reason McDonald's continues to sell billions of their original burger every day.

The fundamental things apply, as time goes by.

Purple sprinkles? Very woke of you, but ... no.

 

I have a long list of products that I would never want changed (cheapened)
The op can probly claim a relative number in either direction but definitely not the blanket as written

 

Yet they always want the new iPhone, the latest technology, recent fashion trends, etc. etc.

 

Survival can be creative.