|
||
When Profit, Freedom, and Creativity Collide
Every year, Eyebeam, the arts and technology center I founded, honors someone who helps celebrate or perpetuate freedom and creativity. We do this because freedom and creativity can't be honored enough - and indeed aren't. Anyone involved in art or technology -- anyone trying to do something new -- knows that freedom and creativity go together.
True creativity isn't possible without freedom of thought; and true freedom is the result of a creative spark. Yet, there are many powerful forces in our culture that aren't comfortable with real freedom. They seek to narrowly define it, for instance, as "being free to shop where and when you like." They believe in the "free market," but not in marketing freedom of thought. They love it as a slogan in a speech, but not when it is put into practice.
And creativity is just fine when it comes to "creative accounting" or the creation of new kinds of banking products -- but not so much when the innovation is directed at something other than the bottom line.
At the heart of this discomfort with freedom and creativity lies our societal suspicion of anything that cannot be commodified or monetized. American culture is so good at monetizing things, it's become both our national pastime and our ultimate goal. If we could monetize a heartbeat, we'd do it in a heartbeat -- and make a gadgillion dollars in the process. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against profit being among our priorities, but as it eclipses every other ideal we are slowly but surely finding ourselves in the Never-Neverland of a world we don't recognize anymore.
Because freedom and creativity, when not in service of the money-making machine, are suddenly eyed as warily as a stranger in a small town. No longer seen as a virtue, they are suddenly seen as threats. To stasis. To groupthink. To the status quo. If this sounds like hyperbole, allow me to remind you of the gentleman who was hauled off in handcuffs from a shopping mall in Albany a few years ago for wearing a t-shirt that said: "Give peace a chance."
As I said, without real freedom we lose even the chance of creativity. And if there is one thing the world cannot afford to sacrifice at this perilous time, it's the potential for creative solutions and innovative ideas.
Fortunately, within this profit uber alles universe, streaking across the sky like shooting stars, are a few role models for those of us who want to start a business but want to continue to be a part of the movement to humanize the world.
Role models like Craig Newmark, this year's Eyebeam honoree. Craig is the founder of Craigslist, that remarkable place that connects people to people and to the things they are looking for. A long lost relative, a desperately needed kidney or a second hand Schwinn, a forlorn love poem... all of these have been looked for and found on Craigslist.
In a sense, Craigslist has become a mirror of our society -- and, as an inevitable result of that, it has achieved some notoriety among the set that prefer to abolish unwelcome reflections rather than deal with the real issues and problems the reflection has exposed.
In the meantime, Craigslist has fostered a community that is both local and international and has helped to provide millions of stories that illustrate that people, at heart, and when given the chance, are basically good and helpful and trustworthy.
But Craigslist has achieved an even greater notoriety for what it hasn't done. By some accounts, Craigslist is potentially worth over $2 billion but Craig and his business partner Jim Buckmaster have decided that attempting to monetize the site further would disrupt the beautiful community that's grown, and they have flat out said: "No thanks; we're fine just as we are." They have embraced the concept of Enough. The site generates enough money as it is to run well. They make enough money to live comfortably.
At first, their declarations of "enough" were met with stunned silence on Wall Street. There were many tilted heads and narrowed eyes as people assessed: "What's their angle? They must want more money! Okay, here's more money." But Craig and Jim just smiled and said, "Really... no thanks. Go invest in someone else." And that's when the accusations started: "They must be Communists!"
I find it very ironic that these Wall Street people, so mired in their own ideology that they are blind to a successful business choosing to chart a path different than the dictates of their Milton Friedman bible, are calling people Communists when they remind me of nothing so much as the old school Marxists who just couldn't see that their train was off the tracks. How out of whack must you be that you are scandalized by the idea of making a sustainable business that expresses your values and the values of your community?
In a sense, at the root of these attacks is the fact that Craig has articulated a powerful vision of how business can be -- and hopefully will be more often in the future. This is profoundly unsettling to the "He Who Has the Most Toys Wins" set.
I believe that Craig is living his values and, together with Jim and millions of other people, is shaping something genuine -- and frequently even beautiful -- for us all. By marshaling his creativity and embracing his freedom, Craig shows us that you don't have to be a starry eyed idealist to simply live your values.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
One ominous trait all "Free Market" cheerleaders (who aren't filthy rich) have in common: they don't know dick about history.
They think in Ayn Rand built silos of marshmallows and rainbows but have no clue that "Free Markets" have been tried continuously throughout the American experiment 1870s-1890s, 1910s and America was a 3rd World country until there were checks and balances set in-place to make this country livable and the "land of Opportunity" the corporate pundits like to chant about.
Before the so-called "Socialist" reforms (that arguably saved Capitalism from impending collapse) , Americans were dying of the *flu*, people were literally worked to death in sweatshops and foundries and the "little guy" small-businessman with the "Libertarian Heart" was muscled, blackmailed, physically beaten by robber-barons who saw them as threats to their own "Free Market"
You can see now exactly what always happens when you let Capitalism run "Free". Are people going to start reading books that actually matter or do we have to continue to go through this bullshit every 30 years or election of a Cowboy President spouting-off about "Welfare Queens" and "evil" Labor movements while erasing our meager existence.
Americans need to get a f***ing clue for a change.
Any system, be it Capitalism or Communism, left alone to run free without a counter-balance is doomed to fail for the majority of the people. Just as the soviet-style communists hoped they could bring equality to the working class and only ended up creating a class of "insiders" and party-leaders who reaped the benefits, do we see a small % of individuals really benefitting from capitalism.
Bingo! extremism is the problem. whether right wing, left wing, Christian, Islamic, free market, socialist etc.. Each has some core valuable ideas, all become tyranny when blindly, literally, followed to extreme.
The author laments the loss of freedom of thought and creativity yet presents no evidence of either.
_____________________________________________________________________________
ct--you need look no further than HuffPo. There are bloggers who don't abide differences of opinion, or being questioned personally. Their censor buttons are well worn. As another poster mentioned yesterday--and received a Huffpo pick for his efforts--this is not a public venue and they have that right. The same argument could be made for your local paper and the letters to the editor; they're under no obligation, but the end result is still an unhealthy control over what the public can or cannot read or say.
So, do the readers have the right to censor our efforts if they reasonably fall withing the guidelines on the FAQ page? For a site that positions itself as a broad market of free expression and one that welcomes diversity and spirited give and take, is it right or fair that they eliminate by fiat those posts they find threatening to their system?
The answer is no.
Just by questioning this process, I stand a good chance of being relegated to the internet ether--and I find That very much in tune with Jonson's blog. If, little by little, our avenues of expression are collapsed, controlled, and entry carefully monitored, then we are dancing with the same devils of secrecy and paranoia that have driven the Bush administration to curtail so many other of our freedoms.
It is not a controlling government limiting our freedoms that Johnson writes about. Johnson was writing about the sapping of humanity that occurs in our focus on commodification and marketization. It all comes down to a simple statement of principles. What is most important for a society to accomplish? Hopefully, to better the lives of its members.
Considering "profit motive" the only means of doing so is the biggest error in thinking of our time. There is much more that is much more important than making bucks.
Thank you for choosing to honor creative entrepreneurs with a sense of community. These gentlemen set a fine example.
This entire article is a contradiction. The author laments the loss of freedom of thought and creativity yet presents no evidence of either. Is not the fact that the author is allowed to openly express his opinion and have it posted here not evidence of freedom of thought? Think you would be allowed to express your opinion so openly and without fear of government retribution in a country like Iran or Venezuela? The U.S. is the very embodiment of freedom of expression and creativity, which is why we have led the world in innovation and economic development, among other areas. Additionally, to insinuate the U.S. is defined by the bottomline is farcical, as evidenced by the fact that we have the most non-profit organizations and are by far the most charitable country in the world. Not to mention, the group that gives the most is conservative Christians--the group normally accused of being the most obsessed with money. And the stingiest group? Liberals.
The fact that the owners of craigslist have chosen not to further commercialize their business is manifest evidence of freedom of choice and creativity at work. That is the beauty of a "free" market: businesses and consumers are free to make their own decisions in regards to their business or their purchases, rather than being dictated by a central authority. Mr. Johnson, freedom and creativity are all around you, you just need to take off your blinders.
I'll bet that the conservative Christians give more because they have more. I bet that they don't give till it hurts, but mainly to lessen their tax load. I bet most of their charity goes to building churches or running programs that assist people who are willing to convert to their religion and attend their church. Let's not forget, their are many televangelists that need to get around in their private airplanes. Boy, they sure do make the world a better place, don't they?
cct84. Hmmm. Through hard won experience I understand deeply the motivational and control syndromes of corporations. I feel the market's pressure against non-monetization. The author is not lamenting the loss of freedom as much as he is the lack of understanding of the value of freedom separate and apart from money. Your post, monetizing even the giving status of "conservative Christians vs. Liberals" is a good point of proof for his argument.
You are the one wearing blinders, my friend. Craiglist's Craig would likely be categorized as a liberal, if he would let you characterize him at all. And his contributions amount to what Wall Street values at upwards of TWO BILLION DOLLARS which he gets no tax break for by the way, while your tithing gets you a tax deduction and your churches pay no taxes. Get real.
The author laments the loss of freedom of thought and creativity yet presents no evidence of either.
_____________________________________________________________________________
ct--you need look no further than HuffPo. There are bloggers who don't abide differences of opinion, or being questioned personally. Their censor buttons are well worn. As another poster mentioned yesterday--and received a Huffpo pick for his efforts--this is not a public venue and they have that right. The same argument could be made for your local paper and the letters to the editor; they're under no obligation, but the end result is still an unhealthy control over what the public can or cannot read or say.
So, do the readers have the right to censor our efforts if they reasonably fall withing the guidelines on the FAQ page? For a site that positions itself as a broad market of free expression and one that welcomes diversity and spirited give and take, is it right or fair that they eliminate by fiat those posts they find threatening to their system?
The answer is no.
Just by questioning this process, I stand a good chance of being relegated to the internet ether--and I find That very much in tune with Jonson's blog. If, little by little, our avenues of expression are collapsed, controlled, and entry carefully monitored, then we are dancing with the same devils of secrecy and paranoia that have driven the Bush administration to curtail so many other of our freedoms.
sorry for the double post--Huffpo a little slow today...
Rule: The more interesting point is that Huff and all other bulletin board type services,
Are Not Allowed by law and by societal reaction, to let people say anything they want.
you can't post: personal physical threats, porn, copyrighted work, secrets under NDA, government secrets, etc... without opening your site up to legal action to shut you down, and possibly imprison you. That's the law.
Right Now, Conservative Joe Lieberman is busy trying to censor YouTube even more:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/20/434/98155/912/518769
*
Even if I believed conservative propaganda that conservatives give slightly more then liberals, why do conservatives give that money?
Guilty conscience? Church peer pressure? tax breaks? Keeping up the image? giving to "charities" that are really just shell companies to give their family and buddies money?
Read "The Scarlet Letter" again.
It's all in the eye of the beholder, isn't it Mack20? We both read the same article; and both came away with diametrically opposite takes on it. When the author of the post said "Don't get me wrong. I'm not against profit being among our priorities" he lost me. Because seeking profit always leads to unhealthy activities; and no amount of looking at all the good that's done because people seek profit can change that. All the foundations, named for all the 19th and 20th century industrialists, cannot change or undo the kinds of activities that created the profits that funded the foundations. Of course it's human nature to be greedy; but any good done throughout history by greed is almost invisible amidst the enormous evil left in its wake. Greed and creativity cancel each other out. Even soft greed, like a Bill Gates. I'm sure his foundation does wonders to improve the world; but at the end of the day it's a world that would not need so much improvement if the Gates's of this world had not been so greedy. The proof, as always, is in the pudding. And on a planet poised to confer the title of "extinct" upon humanity, this pudding has more the look and feel of The Blob than a nice souffle.
it is NOT human nature to be greedy. It is human nature to be self-centered. In being self-centered however, one can realize that others share this point of view, rejoice in it and act accordingly, or choose to act alone. Choosing to act alone is the fearful path and leads to an unrewarding life full of meaningless monetary gain (or a futile attempt at it).
Oh if you are looking for a charitable enterprise, I could use a hand out to keep up with Steve Ballmar's, ( Microsoft CEO) relentless upgrades! The Mac computer I had 6 years ago still works just fine for artwork; but I've had to buy 2 more since then, just to connect with the Internet! ( Microsoft refused to allow Internet Explorer for Mac OS 9 and before!) The new MAc came with Microsoftworks installed, IF I would pay them $500. for the priviledge. NO WAY; it isn't worth .5c, compared to the software I use ( which also cost for the upgrades!)
And now they want to buy Yahoo, the only (" visually oriented" search engine!). When you are searching on line for reference.......Google gives you text. Yahoo gives you pictures! I bet you have Microsoft stock!
How about spending a little time today to inform yourself about the Orphan Works legislation they are about to vote on in Congress. S 2913 & HR 5889.
While Sen Kennedy, ( preboomer) is still in the hospital! He simplified the copyright laws years ago, for the better. Now they want to change it, putting MY IMAGES on line at jeopardy, unless I can afford to travel to China/India, hire lawyers and contest the theft of my original work.
Kudos to Craig and Jim for knowing the difference between reasonable profit and obscene profit. The monetary difference between the two has to come from somewhere and generally it comes from the American individual. Taking additional money from the American people in order to do "good" sounds OK in theory, but in practice corporate good for shareholders is bad news for the American worker. It does not take a string of business degrees to see that the American people do more good in a day than a corporation will do in a lifetime.
With a couple of business degrees, I’ll be the first to admit there is plenty of greed in the private sector. But as we see everyday, that particular deadly sin and human nature flaw is prevalent throughout society. Therefore, I have a couple of problems with your analysis. First off, if you and your pals have a real problem with PROFIT, then designate yourselves as NON-PROFIT. That alone should keep those Wall Street people at bay. In fact they will likely ignore you and yours for it. Secondly, and most obviously, try ignoring what outsiders say about you or your friend’s business. If you don’t like those “Wall Street” types, then anything they say shouldn’t matter. Your mention of 2 billion dollars, though, tells me it does matter.
Here is a noble idea for you and your award winning friends. You guys should try to make as much money as possible and try to capture those obscene profits you are afraid of and put them to good use. You don’t have to spend every penny you earn on yourselves you know; you can give it away if you like. Try giving away those excess profits to charity. Then you might actually feel good about what you are doing.
Mack20, Your attitude typifies what I have endured from the overlarge, Boomer population for the last at least 20 years!
I used to have a small profit , small art business.............. I didn't NEED to make a large amount of money, for "TOYS".,just enough. I did everything well, professionally, efficiently, my one failing was NOT to notice the overlarge crowd of "he who dies with the most toys wins" crowd gaining on my heels! IN 20 years, I have had ONLY 5 BOOMER age customers, whereas you're parents and older Brothers & Sisters, appreciated what I did and made it possible to earn a living!
There are ONLY 5 artists listed in the Art Book from your generational group and
2 of them are photographers........your ( groups') talent seems to lie in organizational committees meetings. and change, ( needed or NOT) So non profits are great for you, for me the paperwork to run one takes close to 50% of my painting time so it is a non starter.
Creativity DOES NOT BEGIN WITH A COMMITTEE MEETING!
Hi--I'm a boomer age artist. I'm not listed in any ArtBooks but , unlike your stereotype, I avoid organizational committees and meetings. I simply offer my art skills to the public to make enough money to support myself. I relate to the article's point about our growth-obsessed financial culture. I am content with making what I actually need rather than what a neurotic society says I need.
You don't have to justify your degrees just because the model they teach is becoming outmoded in the new world.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
