What Are We Without Creativity?


Today in class we watched the TED Talk, “Laws that Choke Creativity”.  Throughout this speech, Larry Lessig speaks on the idea that vocal cords have been taken over by infernal machines.  The technology that we are surrounded with today will eventually ruin any sense of artistic development that we have left.  This same technology that is supposed to enrich our community is simple choking the creativity out of it instead.  It is only very soon that “We will not have a vocal cord left. The vocal cords will be eliminated by a process of evolution.”
 
He also speaks on the idea that we used to have a “read-write culture”.  People would participate in the creation and recreation of many works that enhanced society.
 
However, we have become a “read-only culture” in which it can be asked: Who is left to write? Who is left to think?  In this type of culture, “Creativity is consumed but the consumer is not a creator.”  The government has played a key role in all of this.  The laws that have been passed restrict our ability to become unique and independent in our thoughts and ideas.  The copyright laws, especially, force us into the position where there is no room left to create because every thought has already been thought by someone else once before.  Because of this, the copyright laws inflicted upon us constrain our creativity.  We cannot think of our own ideas because they are technically not our own.  If this is the case then there is absolutely nothing in this world that is ours.
 
Lessig’s main argument is that the internet is an opportunity to revive our “read-write culture”.  He shows a series of videos where people have taken previously created works and remixed them to produce something new and artistic.  He wants not piracy but creativity, using technology to recreate and enhance what we already have.
 
Lessig also argues that the architecture of the copyright law has produced the conjecture that all activities are illegal.  Every single uses of our culture is a copy and therefore nothing new can ever be created as long as this law is enacted.
 
Lessig concludes his speech with the phrase, “Legalize what it means to be young again.”
The culture that kids today are producing revolves around the idea of taking “the songs of the day and the old songs” and reviving them.  It is how we feel we can speak and be heard.  Being creative is our way of understanding the world around us.
 
He then states that “…the law is nothing more than an a** to be ignored and to be fought at every opportunity possible.”  Let us rise against the laws we deem unfair and let us stop being victims of this loss of creativity, especially to such “infernal machines”.
 
Larry Lessig’s points and arguments remind me of a short film I once watched entitled “2+2=5”.  In this film, a group of young boys were conditioned to act a certain way in the classroom.  If they disobeyed the teacher or the elder students, there were severe consequences.  One morning the teacher began his lecture by telling the students that the product of two and two was five.  They all had to repeat him over and over until they had conditioned themselves to think of this as the norm.  The one boy that challenged his teacher was forced to the front of the classroom in which he still did not obey.  He wanted to have a mind of his own.  He did not want to be persuaded by authority that easily.
 
The same goes for us.  The government has forced these laws on us, mostly to keep us safe.  But some of these laws are not truly enacted for our common good.  Copyright laws restrict our capability to be that independent, out-of-the-box thinker.  It chokes our creativity.

From Candidate Deceit to Government Position

John Oliver on Last Week Tonight recently discussed the issues of congressional fundraising; funding to support the campaigns of politicians.  It’s quite ironic actually.  These candidates and politicians subject almost as many as four hours a day to sit in an enclosed room to make calls in which they beg for money.  Literally beg for money, but then flipping the switch completely to pose for the public as if they are being forced to do this.  One politician even explained it as “embarrassing, ugly, and demeaning.”


They can make as many excuses as they want and act like their actions are as innocent as ever but before even getting to know one, our views of politicians are already that they generate their campaigns solely around deceit.  In fact, one candidate in the show even exclaimed that his tactic for successful fundraising was to go directly to the wealthier individuals first.  By doing this, more money could be earned in the same amount of time as a less experienced politician could earn by calling anyone and everyone for hopes of scrounging a couple hundred dollars.


It is said that a whole day could be constructed of a politician’s fundraising patterns; breakfast, lunch, and a reception.  There are many candidates that even use concerts and parties to ask for money.  They act as if they dread the task of asking for money, yet do it voluntarily.


The issue with this system, though, is that it is in fact not voluntary at all.  Everything exclaimed above is what is probably thought of a politician at first glance.  However, it is not actually like this.  We look at candidates as dishonest and untrustworthy but we fail to take a further look into what the candidate must go through to succeed.


In order for a candidate to receive votes from the public, they must be well known.  To be well known, a candidate must advertise.  Unless the candidate is wealthy enough to pay for their own campaigns, like Donald Trump, they must get money from somewhere.  This somewhere happens to be the people.  So, although congressional funding can be looked at from an insolent point of view, it is in fact quite necessary; it is an involuntary evil.


It only becomes evil if the candidate IS in fact dishonest and untrustworthy.  Donald Trump is a wealthy man, we know this.  However, many times in his speeches he hints to the people that he wants their money, he needs their money.  Due to the fact that he is running against people who are not as rich as him and who do ask for money, it seems almost normal that he would also be doing the same.  But Trump can afford his own campaigns.  He has made this very clear.  By asking for money, he only makes the others look like less of good candidates.  The government tends to be run by rich people for this very reason.  These wealthy candidates trick the people into thinking that they are better than the rest and the naïve or easily persuaded are all on board.