Jack White on Freedom/Liberty - Detrimental to Creativity?

Jack White III was born as John Anthony Gillis in 1975 in Detroit, Michigan. Since then, he has participated in multiple musical acts, married multiple women, and made a name for himself as one of the most eccentric and avant-garde popular artists of the new millennium. His resume includes writing, recording, producing, and performing with The White Stripes, The Raconteurs, and The Dead Weather, as well as under his own name more recently.

Like him or not (I personally worship the guy), there is no denying that he has many things to say - about art, expression, rock and roll, philosophy, soul, culture, storytelling, or even technology. The following video is taken from a documentary detailing the White Stripes' final tour together, Under Great White Northern Lights. It does a good job of capturing White's fairly unique approach to his work:

This second video is a collection of moments from another documentary that stars Jack White, It Might Get Loud. In this film, Jack White joins guitarists Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin and The Edge of U2 to discuss their various views and opinions on the electric guitar, music, and art:

As you can tell from the videos, Jack has some strong opinions about creativity, expression, and inspiration. His general philosophy hinges on limiting and restricting himself in order to have the process of creating art be a constant struggle with the medium. He explains that he intentionally chooses to impose challenges on himself, like accessing an organ, guitar pick, or microphone while onstage, or purposefully playing guitars that aren't in perfect condition, or booking a ridiculously short amount of time in the studio to record an album, or only allowing three things to be happening in any given song, or only allowing two people to be in the band. He argues that all of these things force him to try harder and dig deeper to create significant and meaningful work. He argues that technology, ease of use, having all the options in the world, and the freedom to choose from a large palette all ultimately limit innovation, creativity, artistic value, and artistic expression. Why? According to White, it makes the connection between the artist and the art weaker and more distant. With unlimited access comes not having to work as hard on your product to make it seem of value. Working in a restricted "box," as White calls it, lights the proverbial fire under his behind to achieve a struggle-induced high level of creativity and expression. In his eyes, if something beautiful can be created under such stress and restrictedness, there must have been a deep connection between the artist and his limited number of tools.

All of these concepts seem to relate in that they all have an anti-freedom sentiment. Not in a political way, but in an artistic way. In particular, these concepts advocate self-imposed restrictions on otherwise normal freedoms and liberties. One might say that, at least when it comes to art, Jack White's ideology conflicts with some of the ideas we've read from British political theorist John Stuart Mill.

Mill's On Liberty is revered as a work that advocates complete unrestricted liberties and freedoms, especially in the realms of thought and expression. This implies that what Mill stands for conflicts with Jack White's philosophy of intentionally taking away freedoms from oneself for the sake of artistic expression. This isn't to say that Mill would have explicitly been opposed Jack White's philosophy had they lived in the same time period. It's not like Mill would have any real problem with Jack White imposing such limitations on himself; he would recognize that White is only one artist who embodies a certain ideal. Mill wouldn't vocally oppose White or criticize his beliefs.

However, Mill's fundamental beliefs are indeed at odds with White's to a certain degree, so Mill probably would have an issue if White's philosophy caught momentum and became very widespread among a majority of artists. Mill might think that on such a large scale, White's strict approach to options and technology could end up hurting the quality of the music that artists create. Perhaps only musicians with certain personalities and temperaments could operate effectively under such barriers. Perhaps certain artists would see these limitations as obstacles that distract from the piece of work they are trying to craft. Mill might make these arguments because he genuinely believes in the exercise of freedom and liberty in almost any context.

As you might have noticed in the second video above, White shares the room with The Edge from U2. This Irish guitarist is more likely someone who embodies the mindset that Mill portrays in On Liberty. The following is a video of The Edge from the very same documentary as the second video above:

Here, he is explaining how he utilizes technology and effects units to channel what he wants to express artistically. Someone like Jack White may argue that the video demonstrates how technology allows for simpler playing to sound more complex than it is. The Edge might retort that due to the vast range of options from which he permits himself to choose, he can still create the sounds he wants just because he doesn't work particularly hard for it. Mill would most likely submit to The Edge's ideology on music and expression.

But who knows? Maybe Mill, being such the advocate for freedom and liberty, would say that everyone should be free to choose how free they are. If Jack White wants to restrict himself in hopes of creating artistic value out of necessity, he can do that. If The Edge wants to make frivolous use of any opportunity the latest music technology has to offer, he can do that too.

Maybe we can all just get along.

Or maybe we can't. Sounds like Jack might be a little hostile about The Edge's musical philosophy: