Creative work exists in a moral economy different from ordinary goods. Most commodity exchange defines a transaction and a boundary: you give me a shirt, I give you $20 and now we don’t owe each other anything. Creative work exists as gifts: the purpose of the gift economy is not transferring objects between people but transforming relationships (creativity by definition is a human pursuit that affects other humans) This is the “spark” in this tweet - things like art, imagination, love, grace, knowledge, and talent are all gifts because their value increases when given away rather than being possessed like an object. This is also why we speak of talent as a “gift” - the artist actually owes it to the world to use it and create - art is actually an intense responsibility, a concept that doesn’t exist in commodity exchange because a completed transaction leaves both parties independent of each other. Art, by being, is necessarily about interpersonal connection (the essence of creativity is: double it and give it to the next person). This is the “ontological difference” that seem to be flying over the heads of the rationalist type - AI is definitely a better painter than most of us, aesthetically graded if this were an art class, but skill is not the soul of art. It’s what Beethoven meant by “Playing a wrong note is fine but playing without passion is inexcusable”. Creative work tends to have two lives: it can be a commodity (ie. price, provenance, dealer, etc.) but its cultural life follows gift logic. This is why the beauty or spiritual change we encounter in books and movies feels incapable of being captured by a price tag

Welcome Dario to Dreamforce!

it's so frustrating watching the creative direction from yung lean's music video become a viral ai prompt. the speed and volume that accounts are able to essentially rip off work today is not good!