This review by The Guardian makes the book sound like high art or "true creativity", which according to the author must be political.
The reviewer refutes the author's initial premise that the idea of creativity is an invention of capitalism, then proceeds to agree breathlessly with conclusions based upon that premise. Then critiques it again:
The drawback to the book’s argument, though, is that it hinges on this rather dourly prescriptive definition of “true creativity”, which is allowed only to be action that critiques or undermines neoliberal capitalism. Creativity, Mould insists, is never allowed to be apolitical. Is a Swedish songwriter who writes a simple love ditty for a US singer that becomes a hit and gives pleasure to millions around the world really not being authentically creative? Is smashing up a cereal cafe in Shoreditch (an act Mould unpersuasively half defends) really more creative than writing a drama series for one of the big corporate streaming services?
Hard to tell if the review is positive or negative. So, the propaganda art of the communists is creative but anything else isn't? Nothing is creative unless it advances "the agenda"?
So much gibberish. Invented lingo: presenteeism, personal filter bubble, algocracy, and more.
My view? The book is total nonsense. Progressive (read: communist) propaganda literature. If this is the quality of future philosophical writing, we should save trees.