¶ … Cultural Studies Lewis Hyde, William Morris, and Sally Banes each offer a perspective of how capitalism affects creativity. For Morris (who writes closest in time to Karl Marx himself) the focus of inquiry is work itself: seemingly with an awareness of Marx's concept of alienated labor, Morris emphasizes the need for dignity and meaning in work. For Hyde, the central answer lies in a social and anthropological understanding of gift-giving: what becomes important is not the work itself so much as the relationship between creator and recipient. For Banes, the issue is collective: her discussion of Fluxus raises the issue of Marxism as we see the communal and collective sense of operation. Ultimately, however, what each of these writers is focusing on is the notion of the self, and how it might resist commodification.

When William Morris delivered his lecture on "The Beauty of Life" in 1880, the Industrial Revolution -- and the vast disruption it had caused to ordinary life in England -- was a relatively recent memory. For example, the production of cloth, which had been done by individuals spinning at a spinning-jenny, had been taken over by vast mechanical looms, essentially robbing individuals of a livelihood and spawning the rise of "Luddites," an underground movement of people who opposed and sabotaged technology. Yet it is important to note, when Morris alludes to this history, what he chooses to emphasize: he decries the replacement of art with "that pretence of art…which is done with machines, though sometimes the machines are called men, and doubtless are so out of working hours…and in short the whole civilized world had forgotten that there had ever been an art made by the people for the people as a joy for the maker and...

The emphasis he places here clarifies that what makes industrially-produced material a "pretence of art" is the absence of "joy." It is the emotional connection between artisan and product that Morris seeks to reinstate.
Hyde by contrast is not placing an emphasis on the emotional well-being of people. His anecdotes in this chapter tend to take for granted the desire of people for status and position within a group. His claim instead is that the group dynamic is lessened by an emphasis on property rights regarding what gets produced. His examples go far beyond the arts, as well. For example, he notes that in the scientific community "ideas do not circulate freely when they are treated as commodities. The magazine Science reported on a case in California in which one DNA research group sought to patent a technique that other local researchers had treated as common property, as 'under discussion'. An academic scientist who felt his contribution had been exploited commended, 'There used to be a good, healthy exchange of ideas and information among [local] researchers…Now we are locking our doors.' In a free market the people are free, the ideas are locked up." (Hyde 107). Again we can see the difficulty of the individual self within this environment: DNA research is not something that can be conducted by a lone heroic individual, it requires a community overall. But in some sense, what Morris had termed "joy" is here understood as "healthy exchange" and "freedom": when the emphasis is placed on the financial reward of the end product, the creative process stalls altogether.

Banes is likewise interested in how the creative process operates socially and in a group. However, in her discussion of Fluxus, we can see…