conglomeration over creativity
Debate Rounds (3)
I think this is a prime example to my point; that even the most creative and artistic among us cannot survive as individually creative for want of material gain that only the monetary system can provide.
Thus I pose my question; do any of us in modern society really live without the want of , a bigger TV, the latest phone, or monetary gain (to pay our rents.) ? I believe that for the vast majority the answer is no.
Creativity and artistic endeavours are two separate things. Artistic expression for profit can be done, and its not a omni-present boogey man of corporate dream smashing that prevents it from happening. Creativity in the form of Art needs to be good, polished and refined out of the gate if the artist wants to survive solely off that talent. Writers, comedians, painters, sculptors, craftsmen of all stripes, those whom we know by name got to their place in history by being masters of their craft. They employed industrial creativity AND artistic expression in which to make their mark. The fault doesn't lay with anyone other than the one trying to bring that talent to market. I have no desire to own a collection of limericks because a poet decided working AND writing just wasn't in the cards for them. As blunt as it is to say, if the 'creative individual' is bringing something to the market that no one wants, how can you fault conglomeration for it?
"We" all work for materialism. Well, since you have identified the problem: stop? I personally don't own a mobile phone. My car is a 2001. Usually, what I buy when the mood strikes is for entertainment, but the remainder is when the need necessitates. While my instance is not remarkable, I am confident I am not alone, and such a decision is not a hard one. I have found that I am more easily able to patronize local artists specifically by NOT buying something for the purpose of having it. That type of buying decision is for lack of a better, a cop out. Your dollars are yours. Blaming a marketing campaign for yours and your monies' separation is the type of creativity that should have been put to work for you rather than inventing a reason for having spent your money.
While it is clich" to argue being your own boss, and doing what you want so the money will follow, its just as clich"d to pigeon hole those poor creative spirits stuck in the web of corporate constraints. Creativity, risk, drive... these are all concepts that must be employed if you want to work outside the safety of the corporate ladder. If they are not present, then maybe a 'drone' in the corporate world is the better alternative: the best place for a person lacking those qualities has already been found.
Lastly, to directly point something out to Pro's question of living without want, Con noticed how 'Monetary gain' got tacked on at the end with '(to pay our rents)'. Con would like to consider that part reaching, we all need to find an income to keep a roof over our head. Monetary gain is the means by which you keep yourself fed, sheltered, and clothed. Con hardly considers that 'materialism', as the absence of which would be societal donation.
Of course it is easy to say that to be successful you must be talented in combing artistic expression and turning a profit. I wish to find fault in this argument as evidence for creativity in the modern world as surely for every successful artist or professional musician there are a hundred people sat at their bureaucratic desks looking at the outside world wanting to be more, to create. I belive that maybe at heart some of them they are every bit as artistic and creative as those successful musicians and artists I mentioned earlier but with the exception that they lack the ability to work with the system to turn a profit, to market, to sell their creativity. Con seems to be arguing that creativity is only possible with the ability to turn a profit and I would argue that this means the death of creativity in so many for lack of business know how that being creative is turned into an almost elitist thing for those both creative and business minded. Surely this thining out of the creative for lack of an ability to work with the system to gain a profit is the definition of the death of creativity for many.
Con argues that it is easy to abstain from the perks that conforming to conglomeration gives. I would argue that with the rise of social technology (like the smartphone) more than ever the lack of conformity (and so lack of desire for material possession) leaves the practitioner at a disadvantage as the person who is slower to find information , more inconvenienced to communicate quickly on the fly with someone you cannot see in the flesh. Thus the man that does not conform to a system in favour of keeping his creativity is at a disadvantage , making creativity a less viable option. I also would imagine con is not alone, largely because owning a "2001" is really not that remarkable in terms of being independent from the system and I"m sure many other reasonable people have done the same. Thus I would ask why that example is so relevant to showing how con flourishes outside the system and feels so free with this in relevance to this non remarkable gesture towards independence.
As I have addressed above, these concepts "Creativity, risk, drive" can be in spades in a candidate however can these really get anywhere without the structure of a corporate ladder to direct the creativity, thus moulding it so much that it is no longer true creativity.
I would like to remind con that in his last paragraph he is highlighting the reason than many turn away from creativity in favour of the monetary gain; to achieve these things he lists. In fact, he has done rather good job of highlighting the necessity of monetary gain to the ordinary person thus suggesting the necessity of conformity to the system. My above paragraphis highlight the enevitable result of this conformity".. the majority death of creativity.
Aw, Jeezus, dude. Really, you choose literally the last effing hour to make your point? I am just coming home from my bachelor party, you couldn't have picked some time.. maybe 24 hours ago to unleash all this?
The lure of materialism is habitually resultant. Source or example or explanation? D'aw, gee. None present.
"Of course it is easy to say that to be successful you must be talented in combing artistic expression and turning a profit. I wish to find fault in this argument as evidence for creativity in the modern world as surely for every successful artist or professional musician there are a hundred people sat at their bureaucratic desks looking at the outside world wanting to be more, to create." ---- whom were inferior to another. This is not a hard concept. To reference a movie from pop culture, you are NOT a special snowflake.
I fail to see a fault of 'the system', if those that are in said system would prefer to hope there best simply don't stack up to other efforts which make the subjective material inherently inferior.
'Con argues....' pretty much everything after that is both speculation and reinvention of my premise, both of which are self evident.
Infromation is not a precious commidity anymore. Nearly, literally, all the inspiration, failed works, successfuly works, mediocre works are at your finger tips. Pro would like to highlight that people need money to survive, and the terms of their aquisition should be on their terms. That, in short, is horse manure. The death of creativity comes from the overwhelming deluge of 'that which is not creative'. Seriously, look at the movies. How many 'remakes' have we been subejected too? Look at advertising campagins. How many rebrandings have we seen?
Pro wants to be a special snowflake for the purpose of being a special snow flake.
Look, I want creative folks, but whats NEW is the easiest market decider of what is old, vs what is new.
Pro desperatley needs this debate to hinge on an emotional argument. Stifling creativity is the Pro verbiage for 'No one cares'. How is that conglomerations fault? Similar cop outs are 'after his/her time' or 'misunderstood'. Its not conglomeration, or some bizarre conspiracy that wants more, new, different. Its we, as a market place. We have desires, we have interests, and literally, we have voteed with our dollars what variety of threshold to the past we would like to connect too.
A novel idea doesn't require an ad campaign.
Pro is mounting a GREAT ad campaign for the standardization and acceptatnce of mediocrity.
No thank you. Its been done.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.