Creation without Incentive?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » Creation without Incentive? » Creation without Incentive?

Page: 1 2

Creation without Incentive?

manwemaster
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 02, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 5

Posted 01/02/09 - 08:19 PM: Subject: Creation without Incentive?	#1
Hello everyone, I'm new here. Just... Just letting you know. My mother and I often talk about communism, meaning she points out flaws, and I compose a government that eliminates or alleviates them. Usually, after bringing up the lack of worker incentive and competition, she asks me weather or not I thought art and invention would flourish, or even exist without financial incentive. I respond that creation isn't a product of desire for money, it is a product of the need to create. I argue the fact that any art created for the sole sake of monetary gain can not have the same quality as a piece that was created for only the purposes of creation. She disagrees. My question is this: Without money, is it likely that art and invention maintain themselves as key parts of our culture? Is creation innate in all of us? Is the quality of the work dependent upon the intentions of the artist? What are your thoughts?
New, Bear With Me

Prime_Mover
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 469

Posted 01/02/09 - 08:45 PM:	#2
manwemaster wrote: My question is this: Without money, is it likely that art and invention maintain themselves as key parts of our culture? Is creation innate in all of us? Is the quality of the work dependent upon the intentions of the artist? It seems that art flourished well enough in the ages when there wasn't much financial recompense for art, so it would seem that the quality of art is not contingent upon the economic context of its creation: whether the art is created by an artist under an economic system that provides fair (or unfair in the case of Jackson Pollack, abstract expressionism, and all of modern art) compensation for the work. As for "invention", it seems that technological innovation and the like is a product of the economic context: without rewards for one's creation, it seems that anyone has any incentive, as you say, to create. This was demonstrated by the technological stagnation of the Communist world. This distinction between art and invention is an interesting one: perhaps it is because of the traditional dichotomy between mind and body. Inventions are seen as useful tools to get things done in reality, whereas art is seen as primarily intellectual and not particularly useful. The typical human feeling (and that of Marx) is that labor is what deserves to be rewarded, and that the mind's work is superfluous to the point of a lack of necessity. I strongly disagree with this thought, for reasons I shouldn't discuss here.
On philosophical vacation until May 8, 2009.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3285

Posted 01/03/09 - 05:37 AM:	#3
Of course art and invention will continue even without financial incentive. Creating things is its own rewards. Our brains are hard wired to figure things out, solve things, or get social and aesthetic awards. Money is worthless. The only value contained in money is what you can trade it for. If nobody accepted money in trade for anything else, nobody would want money. People want to survive, be comfortable and be accepted by themselves or others. There is no other motivation possible. Sometimes western culture gets confused in thinking that money has intrinsic rather than transitory value. I've met a few millionaires and billionaires before. I've often heard that, after the first few million, the numbers don't mean much anymore, because you run out of things to desire. You end up having to be "eccentric" just to justify spending. You are already dodging the issue with communism by ignoring capital, resources and the relationship between the worker and what they produce.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

NikAngelo
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 31, 2008
Location: Some computer

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 204

Posted 01/04/09 - 02:02 AM:	#4
I am willing to take a more cynical approach. No. Art may exist, art may inspire and art may be beautiful without financial incentive. However, it does not flourish on a planet with a global economy and political systems such as capitalism (not to bash capitalism). If the system gets more intense, or money gets even more important to have and maintain for necessital reasons, art will decline further. It is being taken out of schools to save money, and the arts are the first thing ignored when money gets tight. Art is wondrous and many feel that only through art may the human truely express himself. However, if it is between expressing oneself and surviving, most would choose to survive. All hope is not lost, however. If there is a demand for the arts, there will be a supply of the arts, even is the demand is interpersonal. Art is also not a language to be thrown out (may Latin rest in peace). It is an expression of human emotion. It will resurface in any way it can even under the most oppressive of circumstances. Art will never die, but in a world like ours, it may never truely flourish.
I am the God of my universe "See? Life has no apples!" --Mawpe (Thanks for the laugh)

Gulnara
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 08, 2005
Location: USA

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 474

Posted 01/11/09 - 04:30 AM:	#5
The art is a pay in itself. It satisfies person's curiosity, ambition, emotions. If person's basic needs (food, clothes, shelter) are taken care of, he or she can be creating great art without any pay. Over vise it is necessary to be paid from somewhere, for the art, or other job. If anything, there are many examples in life when doing art work for a pay ruins the artist, if he is not fallowing his personal calling but rather adjusts his art to the needs of the consumers or bosses or even societal expectations.
G.E.

Gulnara
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 08, 2005
Location: USA

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 474

Posted 01/11/09 - 05:03 AM:	#6
The art and invention are parts of human nature. It's attaching them to the monetary outcome that can often stop creativity dead. There are artists and inventors who are successfully attaching their intellect to the money flow, for others no pay means they stop being productive, stall, or abandon art. For some there has to be an understanding of a purpose, why create art, if this is an illusion, or they cannot find a big, worthy idea. With inventions the enormous, expensive bureaucratic machine of patents is a grave yard for so many talented people and ideas. The libraries of ideas are berried in the table drawers, basements and the attics of unknown inventors who can't afford to get a patent, and can't disclose the ideas for the fear of someone stealing them (which is totally logical). General picture looks like this: there is a sea of creativity, a mountain of inventions, but there is no supportive system at work to unleash those reaches. Reason is that they are not treated as reaches, but as nuisance or hobbies at best. Say, here in USA, we cry for oil, we go to war to make sure we have oil, while totally ignoring our own reaches of creativity and intellect. The problem is, we only value what can be translated into money or shopping sprees immediately, what is mass produced. We do not look into the future and see those creativity and intellect bringing the enormous dividends on every level of society's life. I
G.E.

Soseki
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2009
Location: San Antonio, Tx.

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 119

Posted 01/11/09 - 07:39 AM:	#7
If an artist makes a painting or something beautiful, then it may be the case the someone will pay for it. This was how artists made their living during the renaissance, and it resulted in a flourishing of great works. On the other hand, taking private money into a public government fund solely created for the purpose of enriching our lives with art is not only stupid, but damnable. The art from this money is often not only pointless and meaningless, but distasteful and horrible. Anyone who would disagree, would do well to research what art projects the National Endowment for the Arts has invested in. Research those art projects and tell me if you truly feel enriched. A capitalist system, on the other hand, provides ample opportunity for great art to flourish. Not only does it introduce competition, and thus, the drive to create better art, but artwork that doesn't move a patron does not get sold. If an artist can not make a living being an artist, then his art is most likely garbage. I know that sounds harsh, but perhaps some research into the National Endowment for the Arts would change your mind?
Sometimes I think to myself, "It would be cool if I put some runes there." So I do.

noscholar
mumvoyeur

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 36

Posted 01/11/09 - 10:50 AM:	#8
A wonderful opportunity to put into words ideas about issues of significance. I believe there is an innate creative inclination in all humankind that will manifest itself no matter what cultural, social or political situation may arise. The creator/inventer does have needs beyond the basic human ones, the most significant of which is an audience-a receptive one at that-to share his/her creation with. The degree of appreciation the creator realizes will directly affect the nature of the creation. One could argue that a serious artist needs support to allow total immersion in his project. Historically some of the most important artistic achievements were made during periods of strong patronage (from the Church during the Renaissance, for example). As far as the significance of the artists intentions goes the perceptions of the viewer in viewing the art work are probably more likely to differ from the intended as not. ---------------------------------------------------- There are no bad ideas-only bad actions.

ellie greenwood
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 07, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 5

Posted 02/08/09 - 12:26 AM:	#9
Van Gogh had a desire to paint but he had no money. I think true artists would still flourish even if they knew they would always be poor as they are compelled to create.

thefiendhitman
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 12

Posted 02/12/09 - 05:04 AM:	#10
If music counts as art for you, it does for me, then no, the promise of money is not required for art to flourish. There will be less artists true, but the devoted ones that do what they do for the love of it, are definitely the ones that will help art to flourish. Van Gogh is an excellent example (see above post). The old blues musicians from the 30s and that time era were often segregated, and not respected (because most of them were black, especially in the South U.S.). This didn't cause them to abandon their art because there was no money in it, they continued regardless. They did it cause they loved it.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.