On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 9:37 AM, nepal wrote:
i take it that you have some alternative account for how a creative
individual can ensure that s/he doesn't die of starvation if they
attempt to pursue their creative work as a full time effort? or do you
believe that such an effort is misguided, and that one can only be
creative "on the side", while doing something that provides for the
basic needs of shelter, heat, food etc?
i don't see my interaction with money as an attempt to accumulate
anything at all. i subscribe to the timothy leary hydrodynamic theory
of money, actually, in which there's enough flowing in the "stream"
for us all to dip in our cups and get what we need as long as no
psychotic idiot decides to build a dam. when i was younger, i saw
money as the root of almost all evil. these days, my understanding has
changed: those of us who live outside the equatorial zones on this
planet don't live in a world in which our survival needs are simply
met. ignoring any higher goals related to art, science, spirituality
etc, work is required to ensure that we survive the winters, and that
we have food for the whole year. somebody has to do this work, and
someone will benefit. who these two parties are, and how they relate
to each other, determines the structure of the societies in which we
live. as much as my teenage kids would like to believe otherwise,
there aren't any shortcuts around this: our world doesn't give us a
free pass to life.
so, the question remains: is it a desirable goal for a creative person
to make a living by pursuing their creativity full time? If so, how
will they be renumerated for their work, and what role does preventing
others from using their work in ways that reduce that renumeration
play in making it all possible?
Linux-audio-user mailing list