CAN CREATION BE INCENTIVIZED?

The mechanism of this draft is to take an isolated point in a sequence of arguments and offer an isolated context in which to dispute it. But the argument you are using to dispute with me isn't original: I gave it myself, which you don't bother to mention, and the contemporary industry gossip you adduce in its support isn't strengthening.

Obviously, socio-economic infrastructure (known as "base" in certain circles) determines the resulting cultural expressions (known in the same circles as "superstructure") that are viable under the circumstances. Equally plainly, the effects of a fundamental alteration of the infrastructure will result in correspondingly large changes in cultural forms over an appropriately-measures time scale. And, to add the last common assumption, current cultural forms therefore will change in relation to the nature of their dependence on current infrastructure.

I said repeatedly that what you call "film," which actually means "capital-intensive video made using the artificially-large pseudo-people created by Edisonian production styles along with a large corps of other workers" will change most in the course of the infrastructure revolution, because their mode of production is not viable given new infrastructure, which will not produce culture like them. In the same way that we have been underproducing pyramids for the last four thousand years, we will underproduce Hollywood-style feature videos in the future, once it has become impossible to prevent people from sharing them. What we do produce will be differently financed, as point to which you direct no attention.

The response here is to agree with me under the guise of attacking my point that, in general, human creativity results from internal unconscious motivations rather than material inducements. The single instance of a form that cannot sustain itself in that mode neither disproves nor even affects the general proposition. Meantime, my analysis is also unaffected by your support for the evident (to you) beauty of pyramids. Either it is possible for the industry that makes this rubbish you find beautiful to prevent the evolution of the human exoskeletal nervous system, or it will fail. This is not an argument about "incentives," to which little is contributed here, nor an insight into the outcome of that struggle. It's just an advertisement for "the movies," which "the movies" are perfectly capable of doing themselves.