Has being “cultivated” — having lived in the world, developed an opinion and strong sense of self — overtaken the aspiration of “youth,” especially as "youth culture” has become increasingly commodified?
Creativity is not a luxury, but is kitsch and mass. To be “creative” is to be in constant transformation and contortion to become something else — to have to constantly reimagine oneself. To be creative is a requirement in an era of global unrest and instability. To be A Creative, to claim that label, is to feel some sort of desperation to differentiate — it shows insecurity, that one is on their toes. Creativity is a form of labor, the main driving ideology of the cultural economy right now. This is very different than “creating.” “Creative” is an adaptation technique"; to “create” is to have control over one’s context, to be able to wield its elements to fit one’s vision or idea. “Creative” is responsive, from the necessity to be clever in a context; “creating” is to act and assert oneself from feeling an internal urge. Being “creative” — hyper-aware — is not a luxury. Rather it’s a sign that one is forcibly adapting, unrelaxed, and trying to survive.
Perhaps that’s why the content that comes out of the creative/creator economy feels so ego-solipsistic — self-branded, drenched in main character energy, contributing content and tagging brands because one feels as if they have Influence — because at its core its about survival, ensuring you are ok in this unstable world, in a state of adaption to prove that you not merely exist in the midst of chaos but matter and will have impact. Rather to be “creative” is a sign that one is unrelaxed and the ego taking over, fighting to survive.
Does independence really mean self-sufficiency or does it mean self-respect, in the Didion-sense?
In the wake of such fervent change, main character energy’s anxiety to justify one’s existence in a moment where everything feels increasingly nonsensical and surreal; is clearing one’s head, not thinking — anti-cerebralization — the only way to actually feel stable in reality? Rather than paralysis, an proactive choice to be still and static, as Tsuda Itsuo says, using stillness as a way to to find life again in “parts of the body that were previously dormant.” To feel the negotiating parties that we’re comprised of — bacteria, microbiome, consciousness, subconsciousness, muscles, and fascia; of being a holobiont.
We are designed to fight for survival, so what happens when we no longer have to fight for survival? Is this why culture feels superfluous, because there’s no need for the majority of the content, product, etc. to be made beyond the mere activity of producing, consuming, and making narratives around it? Our nihilistic fatigue a response to brand’s discordant desire for perpetual growth, its misalignment with what people actually desire?
The Internet is void of physicality for vital culture to emerge. Vital culture emerges and grows from soil and adaptation to the seasons and its cohabitators. A clinical space, there’s no “terroir” nor fighting for physical real estate that allows for the negotiation for coexistence that is so vital for rich culture to emerge.
Which gets to a greater need: what kinds of culture do we have now? Not cores nor political “tribes",” but what are the different functions of culture? Some vital, some fleeting, some socially competitive and others viscerally required. With interspecies splintering, culture — shared values, communications, belief systems, etc. — needs to metaphysically splinter as well to acomodate for the numerous realities we live within and topographies we occupy.
We have the ability to train our senses, to tone them to become hyper-sensitive. Numerous studies have explored how our brain adapts and the competitive dynamic between our senses: blind people can train themselves to develop a sense of echolocation; one Harvard study found that, when individuals were blindfolded for days, the brain rewired itself to best utilize other senses to make sense of the world; and David Eagleman’s lab’s study which proposes REM sleep evolved as a means for the visual cortex to keep its neurological real estate during sleep. Social media, entertainment, influencers, quantification of viewership: we have been trained to think, trust, and live visuals-first. Mantra of “seeing is believing.” There seems to be a direct correlation between the weakness of intuition and the dominance of visual culture. Perhaps we’re unable to trust our sense of intuition because our senses are out of balance, in competition for dominance rather than acting in orchestra.
And there’s been minor rebellion against this starting back in the early/mid 2010’s with the rise of fermentation culture (sourdough, pickles, etc.) and perfume. Both require a leaning into, listening to something, and the trust in one’s reflexive reaction to assess what is needed — intuitive. These percolating practices are small cravings for rebellion against our visually-dominant culture, a means of connecting back to our “lizard” brains and activating our long-dormant, weak sense of intuition.