Thursday, June 21, 2007


In the Statesman this morning, there was a profile of a woman who is apparently a party planner and wardrobe consultant. The article led with the news that "creative" is now a noun as well as an adjective. Creatives are people who offer "creative services" (stylists, event planners, people who, because they have or are perceived to have some kind of rarified aesthetic sense, can help people sell products or sell themselves, or in some way be more successful).

Sorry to be a big curmudgeon on a lovely Friday afternoon, but articles like this are what convince me that the end is near. What more clear sign do we need that our culture has been corrupted by money? Our economic system can't support art because art is worth supporting. It can only recognize the worth of creative activity when it works in service of profit. So we end up with "creatives," who are, as far as I can tell, just deformed, stunted artists.

I hope no one will take my comments personally. I do not mean to disparage anyone who does this sort of work. God knows we all have to make a living, and it's pretty hard to do that these days without compromising. I doubt that I would say no if someone wanted to pay me to tell her which pants to wear this morning or which lamp to buy.

I also find this subject interesting in the context of the big argument we're having about immigration. "We" are angry at a whole class of people who, to oversimplify, come here to do jobs that nobody else wants to do. And, on the other hand, we've created a category of jobs that don't even need to be done, an industry that serves a false need. What's interesting for me as an artist is that my job choices mostly fall in one or the other of these categories.

No comments: