I've been thinking about cultural autonomy largely in terms of controlling what we consume: choosing books, finding worthwhile sources and resisting algorithmically selected entertainment. But perhaps that's only half the problem. A person who carefully curates everything they consume is still primarily a consumer. There's something important about actually producing culture, however amateurishly.
That’s a great point. I would add that we can become better appreciators of the arts (consumers, if you will) when we also produce culture as amateurs. We have a different relationship to it.
The divide should be between skilled and unskilled labor, not creative or non-creative. The latter sounds subjectively elitist, whereas the former is objectively demonstrable. For example, there are many fields that require years of education, training, and experience to achieve a certain level of status, but I would hesitate to call something non-creative. As someone who worked and teaches in a field that's labelled technical and creative, I avoid using those terms because "creative" work is not without its technical demands, and the "technical" work is not without its advances due to creative insights or applications of their skills.
Dave, this is an interesting reframe. I agree that emphasizing skill over creativity rewards people who put in the work to develop a capacity for doing something. It’s not just raw talent or genius. Everyone has skills, and everyone can improve them with practice!
I've been thinking about cultural autonomy largely in terms of controlling what we consume: choosing books, finding worthwhile sources and resisting algorithmically selected entertainment. But perhaps that's only half the problem. A person who carefully curates everything they consume is still primarily a consumer. There's something important about actually producing culture, however amateurishly.
That’s a great point. I would add that we can become better appreciators of the arts (consumers, if you will) when we also produce culture as amateurs. We have a different relationship to it.
The divide should be between skilled and unskilled labor, not creative or non-creative. The latter sounds subjectively elitist, whereas the former is objectively demonstrable. For example, there are many fields that require years of education, training, and experience to achieve a certain level of status, but I would hesitate to call something non-creative. As someone who worked and teaches in a field that's labelled technical and creative, I avoid using those terms because "creative" work is not without its technical demands, and the "technical" work is not without its advances due to creative insights or applications of their skills.
Dave, this is an interesting reframe. I agree that emphasizing skill over creativity rewards people who put in the work to develop a capacity for doing something. It’s not just raw talent or genius. Everyone has skills, and everyone can improve them with practice!