The Value of What You Do is Your Call
May 28, 2019 10:29 PM Subscribe
"But what bothers me is the assumption than anyone has a right to tell me how I should price my work and the unspoken insistence that the primary way I should find value in what I do is economic in nature." The author of the Tales of the Grotesque and Dungeonesque fantasy gaming blog writes about releasing creative work on the internet.
"Hey, something I've noticed about the current discourse about getting paid to make TTRPGs:
The people I see who are talking about the legitimacy of getting paid for your work are mostly PoC.
The people who seem to be accepting the status quo are white."
posted by ShawnStruck at 11:53 PM on May 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
The people I see who are talking about the legitimacy of getting paid for your work are mostly PoC.
The people who seem to be accepting the status quo are white."
posted by ShawnStruck at 11:53 PM on May 28, 2019 [4 favorites]
Notably missing from blog: "I make my living selling my creative products" or even "It is important that people be able to make a living selling their creative products".
Unless you're pushing that "Devaluation of creative work" line, of course--I totally get why people are dunking on that. That shit can take a hike, especially if you follow it up with some but you're harming the community rhetoric.
Ah. Well then.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 12:00 AM on May 29, 2019 [10 favorites]
Unless you're pushing that "Devaluation of creative work" line, of course--I totally get why people are dunking on that. That shit can take a hike, especially if you follow it up with some but you're harming the community rhetoric.
Ah. Well then.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 12:00 AM on May 29, 2019 [10 favorites]
The people who seem to be accepting the status quo are white.
If you read to the end of the thread, they make the key distinction:
I've also seen folks not making the distinction between getting paid for work-for-hire (Charge more! Pay higher rates!) and setting prices for creator-owned works (a much more complex topic).
And it frustrates me to see arguments where a person is arguing a position on the second in response to calls for higher pay on the first.
I don’t think the blog author’s wrong, as such, but I also don’t think the statements they’re targeting are directed at them as a producer of creator-owned works (unless there really are people saying all TTRPG content should have a price attached, in which case they can bore off).
posted by inire at 1:04 AM on May 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
If you read to the end of the thread, they make the key distinction:
I've also seen folks not making the distinction between getting paid for work-for-hire (Charge more! Pay higher rates!) and setting prices for creator-owned works (a much more complex topic).
And it frustrates me to see arguments where a person is arguing a position on the second in response to calls for higher pay on the first.
I don’t think the blog author’s wrong, as such, but I also don’t think the statements they’re targeting are directed at them as a producer of creator-owned works (unless there really are people saying all TTRPG content should have a price attached, in which case they can bore off).
posted by inire at 1:04 AM on May 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
As someone who recently spent literal hundreds of hours organizing a collaborative creative project that by its nature kinda had to be free, I have conflicted feelings about this one.
Primarily, it would have been fucking nice to have been paid for what turned out to be a lot of fucking work. Probably you could argue that choosing to make something non-monetizable was a poor decision & we should have spent that time being CEOs of an investment bank or however it is people make money, clearly I don't know.
Here's the thing about the project, though: it is neat and it would not have existed without donated labor from a bunch of people who were privileged enough to have creative time they didn't need to monetize.
No one was going to pay us to make this weird-ass thing that a lot of people claim to enjoy, & now it exists & anyone can go play it for free. This feels like a win to me.
As for the idea that free work devalues the creative labor of a community... it's not an argument I'm completely unsympathetic to, but I don't think it's fair to pretend people buy art in the same way they buy a new washing machine. No one who wanted & could afford to see Endgame in the theater on opening weekend stayed home because they could get a better deal watching Strong Bad emails.
posted by taquito sunrise at 1:07 AM on May 29, 2019 [8 favorites]
Primarily, it would have been fucking nice to have been paid for what turned out to be a lot of fucking work. Probably you could argue that choosing to make something non-monetizable was a poor decision & we should have spent that time being CEOs of an investment bank or however it is people make money, clearly I don't know.
Here's the thing about the project, though: it is neat and it would not have existed without donated labor from a bunch of people who were privileged enough to have creative time they didn't need to monetize.
No one was going to pay us to make this weird-ass thing that a lot of people claim to enjoy, & now it exists & anyone can go play it for free. This feels like a win to me.
As for the idea that free work devalues the creative labor of a community... it's not an argument I'm completely unsympathetic to, but I don't think it's fair to pretend people buy art in the same way they buy a new washing machine. No one who wanted & could afford to see Endgame in the theater on opening weekend stayed home because they could get a better deal watching Strong Bad emails.
posted by taquito sunrise at 1:07 AM on May 29, 2019 [8 favorites]
It should be possible to express ambiguity or unhappiness with the pervasive idea that "the primary way I should find value in what I do is economic in nature" without being labelled harmful to the community.
'Fuck you pay me' is a genuinely worthwhile mantra that ought to be more widespread but that doesn't mean that folks who are unhappy with how capitalism shapes what they make and work on - whether or not they have the privilege or ability to drop it and find another way to make a living - are wrong.
I am concerned about a semantic shift from 'it's shitty but you gotta engage with this economic way of thinking about your own art/work/whatever if you want to eat, and if you can just skip that maybe think about your privilege in being able to do so' to some of the stuff I saw in this recent thread , which came off as much closer to 'how dare you think that you are more than your economic value, that's unrealistic'.
On edit, what inire said, this feels like it's two or more adjacent issues in the TTRPG writing community glancing off each other, particularly showing up some differences between 'scenes'.
posted by ocular shenanigans at 1:32 AM on May 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
'Fuck you pay me' is a genuinely worthwhile mantra that ought to be more widespread but that doesn't mean that folks who are unhappy with how capitalism shapes what they make and work on - whether or not they have the privilege or ability to drop it and find another way to make a living - are wrong.
I am concerned about a semantic shift from 'it's shitty but you gotta engage with this economic way of thinking about your own art/work/whatever if you want to eat, and if you can just skip that maybe think about your privilege in being able to do so' to some of the stuff I saw in this recent thread , which came off as much closer to 'how dare you think that you are more than your economic value, that's unrealistic'.
On edit, what inire said, this feels like it's two or more adjacent issues in the TTRPG writing community glancing off each other, particularly showing up some differences between 'scenes'.
posted by ocular shenanigans at 1:32 AM on May 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
[Off topic but thanks to Caduceus for the string of D&D / OSR / TTRPG posts on the Blue!]
posted by inire at 1:42 AM on May 29, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by inire at 1:42 AM on May 29, 2019 [4 favorites]
There's also a generational aspect to this discussion, much broader than just in tabletop role playing games in that people who've come of age during or after the 2008 depression are much less able and willing to work for free because so much of what for older people was at most a side hustle, is the primary way in which they can make a living beyond sustenance level.
In fandom frex we see that a lot of free labour is undertaken by people who can afford to do so, because they have a decent paying job or are already retired, to the point that they can take a week off to help setup, run and breakdown a convention each Easter or whatever.
Nobody is paid to run stuff at your traditional sf con and damn few people even get their membership or hotel comped, but that does mean a barrier of entry to people who don't have that financial comfort to sacrifise their time and money that way and it's one part of how sf fandom can still be too white and middle class. It means that for many younger people without that financial security, commercial cons are easier to work for, because they actually pay their people.
With the increased commercialisation of literally everything and the disappearance of any social safety nets, many people just don't have the luxury to not charge for their labour and have to look at everything from a commercial point of view.
posted by MartinWisse at 1:43 AM on May 29, 2019 [9 favorites]
In fandom frex we see that a lot of free labour is undertaken by people who can afford to do so, because they have a decent paying job or are already retired, to the point that they can take a week off to help setup, run and breakdown a convention each Easter or whatever.
Nobody is paid to run stuff at your traditional sf con and damn few people even get their membership or hotel comped, but that does mean a barrier of entry to people who don't have that financial comfort to sacrifise their time and money that way and it's one part of how sf fandom can still be too white and middle class. It means that for many younger people without that financial security, commercial cons are easier to work for, because they actually pay their people.
With the increased commercialisation of literally everything and the disappearance of any social safety nets, many people just don't have the luxury to not charge for their labour and have to look at everything from a commercial point of view.
posted by MartinWisse at 1:43 AM on May 29, 2019 [9 favorites]
It’s not that he doesn’t have a point, it’s the fact that he’s dodging — and in fact scoffing at — his responsibility to the larger group.
It definitely whiffs of a "everyone just be selfish and it will all work out" mentality. It’s one thing to acknowledge the social cost and go ahead anyway, it’s quite another to deny the social cost exists at all.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 2:03 AM on May 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
It definitely whiffs of a "everyone just be selfish and it will all work out" mentality. It’s one thing to acknowledge the social cost and go ahead anyway, it’s quite another to deny the social cost exists at all.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 2:03 AM on May 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
To the extent that he’s talking about creator-owned work, I don’t think he has a responsibility to the larger group (although obviously this does not apply when he’s working for hire). And I think it’s overly reductive to describe this as a selfish mentality - the point he’s making is that he (as a stand-alone creator) is free to be unselfish by putting out some of his content for free.
Does that have a social cost? A small one, perhaps - someone might use a one page dungeon he posts for free rather than paying for similar content from another creator. But charging for everything you produce as a creator also comes with a social cost, by excluding those who can’t afford it.
I think the existence of free content is a key part of what makes the hobby so widely accessible, and provided that there is still space for creators to charge for content (whether it’s theirs alone or work produced for hire), free content is a good thing. That might change if we were seeing a tsunami of free content that crowds out paid work, but I don’t think we are.
posted by inire at 2:27 AM on May 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
Does that have a social cost? A small one, perhaps - someone might use a one page dungeon he posts for free rather than paying for similar content from another creator. But charging for everything you produce as a creator also comes with a social cost, by excluding those who can’t afford it.
I think the existence of free content is a key part of what makes the hobby so widely accessible, and provided that there is still space for creators to charge for content (whether it’s theirs alone or work produced for hire), free content is a good thing. That might change if we were seeing a tsunami of free content that crowds out paid work, but I don’t think we are.
posted by inire at 2:27 AM on May 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
My 14-year old penniless self would like to thank all the creators who have made the choice to share their work for free.
"Fuck you pay me" is a completely understandable attitude as long as it does not evolve into "fuck you if you can't pay me".
posted by hat_eater at 2:41 AM on May 29, 2019 [12 favorites]
"Fuck you pay me" is a completely understandable attitude as long as it does not evolve into "fuck you if you can't pay me".
posted by hat_eater at 2:41 AM on May 29, 2019 [12 favorites]
I do understand the arguments against doing these kinds of creative side-projects for free, but my problem with them is that they end up doing either or both of (a) excluding consumers who can't afford to pay, or (b) excluding creators who want to make stuff that isn't popular enough (or, probably, mainstream enough) to attract a large paying audience or get corporate/grant/patron support. Neither of those is really great.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 3:02 AM on May 29, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 3:02 AM on May 29, 2019 [4 favorites]
Yes, there's a difference in demanding to be paid a fair wage (which itself is complicated because what qualifies as a fair wage seems to differ by region, so for labor that can be done remotely what does that even mean), and creating and offering a product for any price (including free). Working for someone else and working for yourself are two very different things.
But it's more complicated than that. Working for a company like Hasbro is completely different than working for a small outfit owned by one or two people trying to create a product that is profitable and has to compete against products from a company like Hasbro. Owners of small businesses take on a lot of financial risks that employees don't have to. Small businesses fail all the time, especially in an environment where big businesses can write their own ticket and don't have to worry about any sort of regulations (except maybe in California).
Employees should understand that there are certain kinds of benefits you'll get working for a small company that you'll never get from a big one (being seen as a human being, the potential for flexibility), and there are benefits that you're a lot more likely to get at a big company (opportunity for advancement, retirement package). And there are small business owners who are jerks and withhold resources from employees just because they can, and there are big businesses that are somewhat enlightened and not always soul-crushing machines (so I hear).
But the only thing that has ever led to better working conditions is organizing and creating social and political change. Harassing individual artists for "not charging enough" is not a good look. When we finally get our fully automated luxury gay space communism, I wonder what our rpgs will look like. Because it's kind of a light bulb problem. In the early days of electricity, light bulbs were lasting too long. You'd tool up your light bulb factory, sell a million light bulbs, and then have to close because nobody needed light bulbs anymore. So all the light bulb manufacturers got together and decided to put a hard limit on how long a light bulb was allowed to last, and no one could make or advertise a longer-lasting bulb. From one point of view, that's a terrible cost to society. But how else to keep the factories open? D&D had the same problem in the days of TSR: If you were selling a set of rulebooks that allowed (even encouraged) people to use their imagination to create their own content, how could you keep the company profitable enough to stay open once sales growth plateaus? One of the reasons I quit D&D when I did was that the second edition books appeared to be a desperate cash grab (as indeed it was). But looking back from the perspective of 5th edition, it was also the blossoming of a massive amount of creative content that still inspires the adventures I'm writing now.
Capitalism is complicated enough. Throw art in the mix and distribute on the internet, and tears are pretty much guaranteed. Excuse me while I go put on my (legally purchased) mp3s of GIllian Welch's "Everything is Free."
posted by rikschell at 4:33 AM on May 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
But it's more complicated than that. Working for a company like Hasbro is completely different than working for a small outfit owned by one or two people trying to create a product that is profitable and has to compete against products from a company like Hasbro. Owners of small businesses take on a lot of financial risks that employees don't have to. Small businesses fail all the time, especially in an environment where big businesses can write their own ticket and don't have to worry about any sort of regulations (except maybe in California).
Employees should understand that there are certain kinds of benefits you'll get working for a small company that you'll never get from a big one (being seen as a human being, the potential for flexibility), and there are benefits that you're a lot more likely to get at a big company (opportunity for advancement, retirement package). And there are small business owners who are jerks and withhold resources from employees just because they can, and there are big businesses that are somewhat enlightened and not always soul-crushing machines (so I hear).
But the only thing that has ever led to better working conditions is organizing and creating social and political change. Harassing individual artists for "not charging enough" is not a good look. When we finally get our fully automated luxury gay space communism, I wonder what our rpgs will look like. Because it's kind of a light bulb problem. In the early days of electricity, light bulbs were lasting too long. You'd tool up your light bulb factory, sell a million light bulbs, and then have to close because nobody needed light bulbs anymore. So all the light bulb manufacturers got together and decided to put a hard limit on how long a light bulb was allowed to last, and no one could make or advertise a longer-lasting bulb. From one point of view, that's a terrible cost to society. But how else to keep the factories open? D&D had the same problem in the days of TSR: If you were selling a set of rulebooks that allowed (even encouraged) people to use their imagination to create their own content, how could you keep the company profitable enough to stay open once sales growth plateaus? One of the reasons I quit D&D when I did was that the second edition books appeared to be a desperate cash grab (as indeed it was). But looking back from the perspective of 5th edition, it was also the blossoming of a massive amount of creative content that still inspires the adventures I'm writing now.
Capitalism is complicated enough. Throw art in the mix and distribute on the internet, and tears are pretty much guaranteed. Excuse me while I go put on my (legally purchased) mp3s of GIllian Welch's "Everything is Free."
posted by rikschell at 4:33 AM on May 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
If you make something for the love of it, and are happy to share it without expecting anything in return, the world is a better place for it. How are we supposed to imagine a world beyond capitalism if every step of the way we are lectured for not being capitalist enough?
posted by oulipian at 5:07 AM on May 29, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by oulipian at 5:07 AM on May 29, 2019 [9 favorites]
It's not just gaming, of course – this mindset pervades all creative endeavors in a capitalist society.
As the author notes, the advice is generally well intentioned – because to "get ahead" in a capitalist society (for certain definitions of "getting ahead"), you have to play this game. If you want to spend time doing creative work, then it certainly helps if that work is economically self-sustaining.
What's overlooked is the price that you pay in the process. Namely, the way it reduces all human interaction to a self-interested economic transaction. And the way that it pushes one's creativity toward pandering and mediocrity.
Capitalism has perpetuated the idea that creativity is just a way to generate wealth, another product to be bought and sold in the marketplace, rather than a basic personal and social need.
Even putting creative work aside, I see the same thing all the time in job and career advice: here's how to get that job, get that promotion, get your way. Not that there's anything wrong with getting jobs or promotions – but all of it is single-mindedly focused on achieving the economic benefit, with zero consideration given to the spiritual and social cost. More money and more status are always better. I've literally never seen a career advice article that says "You know what, maybe that next rung on the ladder isn't the right move for your overall well-being. Maybe that rung shouldn't even be there."
posted by escape from the potato planet at 5:14 AM on May 29, 2019 [11 favorites]
As the author notes, the advice is generally well intentioned – because to "get ahead" in a capitalist society (for certain definitions of "getting ahead"), you have to play this game. If you want to spend time doing creative work, then it certainly helps if that work is economically self-sustaining.
What's overlooked is the price that you pay in the process. Namely, the way it reduces all human interaction to a self-interested economic transaction. And the way that it pushes one's creativity toward pandering and mediocrity.
Capitalism has perpetuated the idea that creativity is just a way to generate wealth, another product to be bought and sold in the marketplace, rather than a basic personal and social need.
Even putting creative work aside, I see the same thing all the time in job and career advice: here's how to get that job, get that promotion, get your way. Not that there's anything wrong with getting jobs or promotions – but all of it is single-mindedly focused on achieving the economic benefit, with zero consideration given to the spiritual and social cost. More money and more status are always better. I've literally never seen a career advice article that says "You know what, maybe that next rung on the ladder isn't the right move for your overall well-being. Maybe that rung shouldn't even be there."
posted by escape from the potato planet at 5:14 AM on May 29, 2019 [11 favorites]
Making a living from your creative endeavors != pandering & mediocrity. It isn't incumbent on anyone to make a living from their art - hobbies and passions are great & important - but the idea that getting paid for creating stuff inevitably makes your art an empty product of the capitalist machine is some hard-core bullshit. Everyone needs to eat. If you want to create stuff and forego "beer money" as TFA so pointedly puts it, that's your prerogative, but you're probably not in the league of people who make careers of it.
posted by grumpybear69 at 6:42 AM on May 29, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 6:42 AM on May 29, 2019 [5 favorites]
To the extent that he’s talking about creator-owned work, I don’t think he has a responsibility to the larger group (although obviously this does not apply when he’s working for hire). And I think it’s overly reductive to describe this as a selfish mentality - the point he’s making is that he (as a stand-alone creator) is free to be unselfish by putting out some of his content for free.
As the saying goes, "no one drop thinks itself responsible for the flood", which gets at the heart of the problem with the piece. Yes, it's nice to have people putting out content for free for people to enjoy - but if you're unwilling to acknowledge the existence of the cult of the amateur and amateurism as class warfare, then you are going to be doing harm. The devaluation of creative labor is a very real thing, and his argument is an example of one of the ways that happens - by not even acknowledging that creation is labor in the first place, and in fact trying to push back on the argument.
You want to give away your labor, that's your choice. But when you start trying to argue that what you did isn't labor, then that's when you need to be told that you are wrong, because now you are pushing harmful beliefs that exclude people.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:04 AM on May 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
As the saying goes, "no one drop thinks itself responsible for the flood", which gets at the heart of the problem with the piece. Yes, it's nice to have people putting out content for free for people to enjoy - but if you're unwilling to acknowledge the existence of the cult of the amateur and amateurism as class warfare, then you are going to be doing harm. The devaluation of creative labor is a very real thing, and his argument is an example of one of the ways that happens - by not even acknowledging that creation is labor in the first place, and in fact trying to push back on the argument.
You want to give away your labor, that's your choice. But when you start trying to argue that what you did isn't labor, then that's when you need to be told that you are wrong, because now you are pushing harmful beliefs that exclude people.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:04 AM on May 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
Once again: for some of us it's just too fucking hard to try to make money off our art. Should we stop doing art altogether so others can make the money? Because when I tried, everyone was too broke and I could only sell stuff that went for $1-2 anyway.
Much as the idea of actually having a "job" doing what you love instead of making money for the Man sounds great, it's also really damn hard and not all artists are awesome businesspeople.
Artists are probably gonna still be making stuff whether or not you get any profit from it. If you want to work at making money at it, great, godspeed, I wish you all the luck in the world. And yes, I'm privileged that my day job allows me to be able to afford my yarn and I don't have to try to make a living off my art that nobody wants to buy anyway.
There's not really going to be a satisfying answer for everyone for this one.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:13 AM on May 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
Much as the idea of actually having a "job" doing what you love instead of making money for the Man sounds great, it's also really damn hard and not all artists are awesome businesspeople.
Artists are probably gonna still be making stuff whether or not you get any profit from it. If you want to work at making money at it, great, godspeed, I wish you all the luck in the world. And yes, I'm privileged that my day job allows me to be able to afford my yarn and I don't have to try to make a living off my art that nobody wants to buy anyway.
There's not really going to be a satisfying answer for everyone for this one.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:13 AM on May 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
Once again: for some of us it's just too fucking hard to try to make money off our art. Should we stop doing art altogether so others can make the money?
I don't ask that you commercialize your art. That's your decision to make, based on your position, needs, and ability.
All I ask is that you acknowledge that your creative labor is exactly that - labor. The problem with the piece is not that he gives his work away for free - it's that he refuses to acknowledge that he is laboring in the first place. The "capitalism" argument is a dodge - creative labor is still labor, no matter what economic system is in place. Furthermore, people often do labor out of enjoyment - think of someone tending a garden, for example.
This is why the "sellout" argument is ultimately bankrupt - at its heart, it seeks to pretend that a form of labor isn't, in order to argue that someone making the choice to sell theirs is somehow inherently immoral.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:26 AM on May 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
I don't ask that you commercialize your art. That's your decision to make, based on your position, needs, and ability.
All I ask is that you acknowledge that your creative labor is exactly that - labor. The problem with the piece is not that he gives his work away for free - it's that he refuses to acknowledge that he is laboring in the first place. The "capitalism" argument is a dodge - creative labor is still labor, no matter what economic system is in place. Furthermore, people often do labor out of enjoyment - think of someone tending a garden, for example.
This is why the "sellout" argument is ultimately bankrupt - at its heart, it seeks to pretend that a form of labor isn't, in order to argue that someone making the choice to sell theirs is somehow inherently immoral.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:26 AM on May 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
he refuses to acknowledge that he is laboring in the first place
I... feel like the author is acknowledging that he is labouring? He says "I get to make that call [re price] because it's my work", he does charge for some of his creations, and he doesn't suggest that charging for your creative output = selling out.
posted by inire at 7:44 AM on May 29, 2019 [5 favorites]
I... feel like the author is acknowledging that he is labouring? He says "I get to make that call [re price] because it's my work", he does charge for some of his creations, and he doesn't suggest that charging for your creative output = selling out.
posted by inire at 7:44 AM on May 29, 2019 [5 favorites]
but I don't think it's fair to pretend people buy art in the same way they buy a new washing machine.
I buy art with available funds. The more things that I don't have to pay for, the more things I can afford that I do have to pay for. It's not as if every penny I save on a free download or whatever goes straight into the cocaine budget.
he refuses to acknowledge that he is laboring in the first place -
All I ask is that you acknowledge that your creative labor is exactly that - labor.
In my experience, this is way too reductive. I've been some kind of artist, some kind of "creative" for over four decades now. Sometimes I've managed to be paid well for my efforts, sometimes not at all. One thing I have learned over time is that there's always stuff I must do in order to satisfy some aspect of my psyche, my self, my soul, and that, short of basic survival needs, this is vital to my functioning as a human being. And no, I don't think of it as labor. It's something else. It doesn't fit into any kind of economic or political metric I'm aware of. Telling me I shouldn't do it, or (more to the point here) I shouldn't share it because it upsets some aspect of "how things should be" just feels wrong ... and kind of dangerous.
posted by philip-random at 8:06 AM on May 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
I buy art with available funds. The more things that I don't have to pay for, the more things I can afford that I do have to pay for. It's not as if every penny I save on a free download or whatever goes straight into the cocaine budget.
he refuses to acknowledge that he is laboring in the first place -
All I ask is that you acknowledge that your creative labor is exactly that - labor.
In my experience, this is way too reductive. I've been some kind of artist, some kind of "creative" for over four decades now. Sometimes I've managed to be paid well for my efforts, sometimes not at all. One thing I have learned over time is that there's always stuff I must do in order to satisfy some aspect of my psyche, my self, my soul, and that, short of basic survival needs, this is vital to my functioning as a human being. And no, I don't think of it as labor. It's something else. It doesn't fit into any kind of economic or political metric I'm aware of. Telling me I shouldn't do it, or (more to the point here) I shouldn't share it because it upsets some aspect of "how things should be" just feels wrong ... and kind of dangerous.
posted by philip-random at 8:06 AM on May 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
Parallels abound with open source software.
The existence of open source software is, arguably, dependent on a lot of developers having the economic privilege to be able to give away their labor and still somehow survive economically. And that keeps other developers from having the option of making similar things and selling what they make -- there are probably a ton of people who could make a living being a small-time programmer, like people do for iOS, where installing open-source software is difficult, who can't because too much stuff is given away. That is really a bad thing. Arguably developers of open source software are being wildly exploited; you always hear of vulnerabilities being discovered in open source software and when people look into the matter they find out that a team of like three unpaid volunteers is writing and maintaining a software package which is critical to the operation of multi-billion-dollar corporations. Who have never even *considered* paying those developers for their work. If there were space for a little "fuck you, pay me" in that ecosystem it would make a big difference in a lot of working programmers' lives.
But the existence of open-source software also keeps people from being unable to do anything with their computers because they can't afford to pay people -- or worse, from being forced to use software which is "paid for" by evil and invasive adware. I used a hell of a lot of open source software when I was in a position of great financial precarity, and I was extremely grateful for it.
This is a hard issue. It's good for people to have access to good things without there being economic barriers. It's also good for people to be able to survive economically through creative means. The fact that making money through "intellectual property" requires creating artificial scarcity through legal means -- and that creators can choose *not* to create that scarcity if they want to -- complicates the whole thing.
posted by edheil at 8:21 AM on May 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
The existence of open source software is, arguably, dependent on a lot of developers having the economic privilege to be able to give away their labor and still somehow survive economically. And that keeps other developers from having the option of making similar things and selling what they make -- there are probably a ton of people who could make a living being a small-time programmer, like people do for iOS, where installing open-source software is difficult, who can't because too much stuff is given away. That is really a bad thing. Arguably developers of open source software are being wildly exploited; you always hear of vulnerabilities being discovered in open source software and when people look into the matter they find out that a team of like three unpaid volunteers is writing and maintaining a software package which is critical to the operation of multi-billion-dollar corporations. Who have never even *considered* paying those developers for their work. If there were space for a little "fuck you, pay me" in that ecosystem it would make a big difference in a lot of working programmers' lives.
But the existence of open-source software also keeps people from being unable to do anything with their computers because they can't afford to pay people -- or worse, from being forced to use software which is "paid for" by evil and invasive adware. I used a hell of a lot of open source software when I was in a position of great financial precarity, and I was extremely grateful for it.
This is a hard issue. It's good for people to have access to good things without there being economic barriers. It's also good for people to be able to survive economically through creative means. The fact that making money through "intellectual property" requires creating artificial scarcity through legal means -- and that creators can choose *not* to create that scarcity if they want to -- complicates the whole thing.
posted by edheil at 8:21 AM on May 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
I... feel like the author is acknowledging that he is labouring? He says "I get to make that call [re price] because it's my work", he does charge for some of his creations, and he doesn't suggest that charging for your creative output = selling out.
And yet he followed it up with a categorical denial of the problems with amateurism. Just because he's not going full out on the argument doesn't mean that he's not arguing that creative labor isn't labor.
It also strikes me that he's trying to engage with the argument of people demanding to be paid in a vacuum. His argument of being resentful of people "demanding" he charge ignores the context that this is a long overdue pushback to the argument that selling one's creative labor is morally wrong - something that society has been pushing for some time. Yes, these folks are strident - because they have spent quite a bit of time being told that they should be ashamed for asking to be paid for their creative labor. And, as was pointed out earlier, the fact that the people pushing back the hardest are minorities who have historically had their labor devalued further compounds the issue.
For me, the piece comes across as an ignorant complaint, refusing to honestly engage with the argument and the history behind it. Creators, especially minority creators, have been the target of a long-term push to devalue creative labor - it should not be surprising that they are now pushing back.
One thing I have learned over time is that there's always stuff I must do in order to satisfy some aspect of my psyche, my self, my soul, and that, short of basic survival needs, this is vital to my functioning as a human being. And no, I don't think of it as labor.
But why? Just because you feel that this is something that you have to do to make yourself complete doesn't transmute it into "not labor". It's still work, it still takes effort on your part to execute - from all of the external markers it still qualifies as labor.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:24 AM on May 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
And yet he followed it up with a categorical denial of the problems with amateurism. Just because he's not going full out on the argument doesn't mean that he's not arguing that creative labor isn't labor.
It also strikes me that he's trying to engage with the argument of people demanding to be paid in a vacuum. His argument of being resentful of people "demanding" he charge ignores the context that this is a long overdue pushback to the argument that selling one's creative labor is morally wrong - something that society has been pushing for some time. Yes, these folks are strident - because they have spent quite a bit of time being told that they should be ashamed for asking to be paid for their creative labor. And, as was pointed out earlier, the fact that the people pushing back the hardest are minorities who have historically had their labor devalued further compounds the issue.
For me, the piece comes across as an ignorant complaint, refusing to honestly engage with the argument and the history behind it. Creators, especially minority creators, have been the target of a long-term push to devalue creative labor - it should not be surprising that they are now pushing back.
One thing I have learned over time is that there's always stuff I must do in order to satisfy some aspect of my psyche, my self, my soul, and that, short of basic survival needs, this is vital to my functioning as a human being. And no, I don't think of it as labor.
But why? Just because you feel that this is something that you have to do to make yourself complete doesn't transmute it into "not labor". It's still work, it still takes effort on your part to execute - from all of the external markers it still qualifies as labor.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:24 AM on May 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
If you want to create stuff and forego "beer money" as TFA so pointedly puts it, that's your prerogative, but you're probably not in the league of people who make careers of it.
A professional artist sacrifices part of their creative time to self-promotion, seeking work, accepting commissions for work they wouldn't choose to do for any reason other than money, and accepting tangential work (e.g. electronic musicians doing sound design and mastering/engineering services more than their own composition).
An amateur artist sacrifices part of their creative time at some other job. It doesn't necessarily follow that they're not as motivated, skilled, and experienced as the professional.
posted by Foosnark at 8:29 AM on May 29, 2019 [4 favorites]
A professional artist sacrifices part of their creative time to self-promotion, seeking work, accepting commissions for work they wouldn't choose to do for any reason other than money, and accepting tangential work (e.g. electronic musicians doing sound design and mastering/engineering services more than their own composition).
An amateur artist sacrifices part of their creative time at some other job. It doesn't necessarily follow that they're not as motivated, skilled, and experienced as the professional.
posted by Foosnark at 8:29 AM on May 29, 2019 [4 favorites]
An amateur artist sacrifices part of their creative time at some other job. It doesn't necessarily follow that they're not as motivated, skilled, and experienced as the professional.
Motivation, skill and experience are precisely what differentiates professionals from amateurs.
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:43 AM on May 29, 2019
Motivation, skill and experience are precisely what differentiates professionals from amateurs.
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:43 AM on May 29, 2019
Just because you feel that this is something that you have to do to make yourself complete doesn't transmute it into "not labor". It's still work, it still takes effort on your part to execute - from all of the external markers it still qualifies as labor.
I wish I had a simple response to this. I suppose it's down to whether one prioritizes political-economic concerns over aesthetic ones. I suppose it's the definition of privilege to say I side with aesthetics (certainly with regard to my own personal directives) but feel free to audit me -- you'll not find much in the larder.
posted by philip-random at 8:53 AM on May 29, 2019
I wish I had a simple response to this. I suppose it's down to whether one prioritizes political-economic concerns over aesthetic ones. I suppose it's the definition of privilege to say I side with aesthetics (certainly with regard to my own personal directives) but feel free to audit me -- you'll not find much in the larder.
posted by philip-random at 8:53 AM on May 29, 2019
Motivation, skill and experience are precisely what differentiates professionals from amateurs.
I define a professional as someone who
A. has the skills,
B. is reliable,
C. delivers.
which leads to
D. they get paid for their time and trouble.
Motivation, skill, experience can also happen outside of this definition.
posted by philip-random at 8:58 AM on May 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
I define a professional as someone who
A. has the skills,
B. is reliable,
C. delivers.
which leads to
D. they get paid for their time and trouble.
Motivation, skill, experience can also happen outside of this definition.
posted by philip-random at 8:58 AM on May 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
And yet he followed it up with a categorical denial of the problems with amateurism.
I don't read his denial as relating to the general question of 'should anyone ever be paid for their creative endeavours', but rather as relating to the specific thing he talks about in the rest of the post: whether to charge for every single piece of work he creates.
In other words, he's denying that he's harming the community and devaluing creative work if he refuses to charge "at least $10" for everything he produces, "no matter how insignificant" (per one of the comments he's reacting to).
I find that difficult to disagree with. I appreciate that the comments he's reacting to are part of the long overdue and much needed pushback you cite, but they're pretty poor examples of it, and I think it's entirely justifiable to point that out (provided you don't try to use that to undermine the pushback as a whole, which I don't think he does, based on his comments about the undervaluation of creative work and the need for fair wages).
posted by inire at 9:14 AM on May 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
I don't read his denial as relating to the general question of 'should anyone ever be paid for their creative endeavours', but rather as relating to the specific thing he talks about in the rest of the post: whether to charge for every single piece of work he creates.
In other words, he's denying that he's harming the community and devaluing creative work if he refuses to charge "at least $10" for everything he produces, "no matter how insignificant" (per one of the comments he's reacting to).
I find that difficult to disagree with. I appreciate that the comments he's reacting to are part of the long overdue and much needed pushback you cite, but they're pretty poor examples of it, and I think it's entirely justifiable to point that out (provided you don't try to use that to undermine the pushback as a whole, which I don't think he does, based on his comments about the undervaluation of creative work and the need for fair wages).
posted by inire at 9:14 AM on May 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
Motivation, skill and experience are precisely what differentiates professionals from amateurs.
That's a different meaning of 'professional', I think - a reference to quality of work, rather than to what you do for a living. There is a correlation, but it's far from ironclad - I've met many incompetent, unreliable and inexperienced professionals (in the latter sense), and many highly professional amateurs (in the former sense).
posted by inire at 9:20 AM on May 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
That's a different meaning of 'professional', I think - a reference to quality of work, rather than to what you do for a living. There is a correlation, but it's far from ironclad - I've met many incompetent, unreliable and inexperienced professionals (in the latter sense), and many highly professional amateurs (in the former sense).
posted by inire at 9:20 AM on May 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
The reason the "devaluation of creative work" line rankles is that if you really think the product of that work is valuable, you should recognize that there is social good in making it available.
But my position on this is pretty simple. If somebody else is going to make money from it they should be paying you for it. Otherwise you're just getting scammed. But if you are giving away the fruits of your labor to the general public, to your own ends in accordance with your own values, that's nobody's business.
posted by atoxyl at 9:29 AM on May 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
But my position on this is pretty simple. If somebody else is going to make money from it they should be paying you for it. Otherwise you're just getting scammed. But if you are giving away the fruits of your labor to the general public, to your own ends in accordance with your own values, that's nobody's business.
posted by atoxyl at 9:29 AM on May 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
I mean I think a partial solution might be going for a pay what you want model with a suggested price, where you both explicitly show that there is economic value to your work, but also that you are willing to give that value away for free if people want it.
posted by Zalzidrax at 9:45 AM on May 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Zalzidrax at 9:45 AM on May 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
I wish I had a simple response to this. I suppose it's down to whether one prioritizes political-economic concerns over aesthetic ones. I suppose it's the definition of privilege to say I side with aesthetics (certainly with regard to my own personal directives) but feel free to audit me -- you'll not find much in the larder.
This still isn't an argument for why it's not labor though - there's nothing with regards to aesthetics that pre-empts creative labor being labor. Furthermore, I find it hard to separate the argument from cultural forces that make the classic argument of creativity being a "calling" - and as I have said in other threads, "X is a calling" is an argument routinely used to shame people into devaluing their labor. In short, we live in a culture that has some pretty toxic messaging around art and creative labor.
But if you are giving away the fruits of your labor to the general public, to your own ends in accordance with your own values, that's nobody's business.
Again, no one drop thinks itself responsible for the flood. If one person gives away their labor, that's fine - but get enough, and you create a new normal where that is the expectation - especially if you roll in morality into the choice. This is why amateurism is class warfare.
The reality is that creative labor has been the subject of a societal push to devalue it, a push that has finally been receiving a well needed and long overdue pushback as of late. (One of the things that happened to push this is, oddly enough, the explosion of access to distribution for creators of all types.) If you're attacking the people who are demanding to actually be paid for their labor after years of having society tell them "no, we don't think this is actually labor" without addressing that history, you're not really honestly grappling with the matter in my opinion.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:45 AM on May 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
This still isn't an argument for why it's not labor though - there's nothing with regards to aesthetics that pre-empts creative labor being labor. Furthermore, I find it hard to separate the argument from cultural forces that make the classic argument of creativity being a "calling" - and as I have said in other threads, "X is a calling" is an argument routinely used to shame people into devaluing their labor. In short, we live in a culture that has some pretty toxic messaging around art and creative labor.
But if you are giving away the fruits of your labor to the general public, to your own ends in accordance with your own values, that's nobody's business.
Again, no one drop thinks itself responsible for the flood. If one person gives away their labor, that's fine - but get enough, and you create a new normal where that is the expectation - especially if you roll in morality into the choice. This is why amateurism is class warfare.
The reality is that creative labor has been the subject of a societal push to devalue it, a push that has finally been receiving a well needed and long overdue pushback as of late. (One of the things that happened to push this is, oddly enough, the explosion of access to distribution for creators of all types.) If you're attacking the people who are demanding to actually be paid for their labor after years of having society tell them "no, we don't think this is actually labor" without addressing that history, you're not really honestly grappling with the matter in my opinion.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:45 AM on May 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
My experience (and I've had way too much experience at this) is that if you're getting paid too little for your creative (or for that matter, ANY) work, someone else is getting paid the difference. The challenge is to get paid sufficiently... and that's a challenge I (and most other creatives) have rarely overcome.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:53 AM on May 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:53 AM on May 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
Or, to summarize, my problem with the piece is that the author takes umbrage at these people telling them how to price their work - but fails to note that for a very long time, the discussion was in the other direction, with these creators being told consistently that their creative labor wasn't actually labor, and thus their demanding payment for it was somehow "unethical".
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:57 AM on May 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:57 AM on May 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
I know there are a couple conversations going on here, but I'm not suggesting at all that creative work isn't labor. I'm suggesting that it's shitty to treat genuine amateur or volunteer labor as scabbery, and that if you really believe in the value of the product of that labor I don't think there's a great moral case to be made against giving it away - really giving it away, not doing spec work etc.
If there's something you and I are likely to agree on, it's that in the online ecosystem it's pretty tricky even to know whether anyone is profiting from your free labor, let alone to escape it.
posted by atoxyl at 11:05 AM on May 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
If there's something you and I are likely to agree on, it's that in the online ecosystem it's pretty tricky even to know whether anyone is profiting from your free labor, let alone to escape it.
posted by atoxyl at 11:05 AM on May 29, 2019 [1 favorite]
If one person gives away their labor, that's fine
This is what the post argues, contra the various comments that this is never fine, implies a lack of self-respect, damages the community, etc. It's not attacking people who are demanding to be paid (and I do think it recognises the existence and validity of those demands, albeit without focusing on them), it's attacking people who are getting carried away and demanding that you never make your work publicly available (even if it's something done on your own account, for your own enjoyment, etc.) without being paid.
- but get enough, and you create a new normal where that is the expectation
This is the key point to me. Volunteer labour done for love / recognition / aesthetic pleasure might not be scabbery exactly, but it's going to have a pretty similar effect if it becomes the norm and leaves little or no room for other people to get paid.
Working out the degree to which you as an individual bear responsibility for these collective norms, and how you balance that responsibility against your creative freedom and the need to avoid pricing people out of a community... I don't think there are uncomplicated answers to that (as is apparent from the thread!).
posted by inire at 11:54 AM on May 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
This is what the post argues, contra the various comments that this is never fine, implies a lack of self-respect, damages the community, etc. It's not attacking people who are demanding to be paid (and I do think it recognises the existence and validity of those demands, albeit without focusing on them), it's attacking people who are getting carried away and demanding that you never make your work publicly available (even if it's something done on your own account, for your own enjoyment, etc.) without being paid.
- but get enough, and you create a new normal where that is the expectation
This is the key point to me. Volunteer labour done for love / recognition / aesthetic pleasure might not be scabbery exactly, but it's going to have a pretty similar effect if it becomes the norm and leaves little or no room for other people to get paid.
Working out the degree to which you as an individual bear responsibility for these collective norms, and how you balance that responsibility against your creative freedom and the need to avoid pricing people out of a community... I don't think there are uncomplicated answers to that (as is apparent from the thread!).
posted by inire at 11:54 AM on May 29, 2019 [3 favorites]
You could argue that I shouldn't clean my own apartment if I could afford to hire someone who needs work to clean it, and perhaps even if I can't afford it. Capitalism distorts everything and it becomes all of our faults.
posted by Obscure Reference at 12:10 PM on May 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by Obscure Reference at 12:10 PM on May 29, 2019 [2 favorites]
If somebody else is going to make money from it they should be paying you for it. Otherwise you're just getting scammed.
The thing that people do not seem to get--and I must say it baffles me that they do not get it, because the examples are all over the place--is that by promoting capitalist institutions and ideology in your creative space you are effectively inviting someone else to come in, make money from it, and still scam you. 98% of participants will end up disposable temporary labor units for some huge and market- (and thus aesthetic-) distorting intermediary. I don't know how anyone expects another outcome here in 2019.
If I thought a fervent embrace of capitalism by all artists would lead to everyone making rent and putting money away for retirement, I might feel different about it. I don't see that it does.
Volunteer labour done for love / recognition / aesthetic pleasure might not be scabbery exactly, but it's going to have a pretty similar effect if it becomes the norm and leaves little or no room for other people to get paid.
On the other hand, it also makes services available to people who would never be able to afford them otherwise.
The busiest fanfic archive in the world is, last I looked, An Archive of Our Own, an entirely volunteer project. It has its flaws and problems, but there is no question that it has given a platform to, at this point, literally millions of people who might otherwise been excluded by lack of technical ability or funds or networks.
Yes, I expect it prevents some other group of people who might have sold archive software from doing so. It's not obvious to me which is more important.
posted by praemunire at 12:28 PM on May 29, 2019 [4 favorites]
The thing that people do not seem to get--and I must say it baffles me that they do not get it, because the examples are all over the place--is that by promoting capitalist institutions and ideology in your creative space you are effectively inviting someone else to come in, make money from it, and still scam you. 98% of participants will end up disposable temporary labor units for some huge and market- (and thus aesthetic-) distorting intermediary. I don't know how anyone expects another outcome here in 2019.
If I thought a fervent embrace of capitalism by all artists would lead to everyone making rent and putting money away for retirement, I might feel different about it. I don't see that it does.
Volunteer labour done for love / recognition / aesthetic pleasure might not be scabbery exactly, but it's going to have a pretty similar effect if it becomes the norm and leaves little or no room for other people to get paid.
On the other hand, it also makes services available to people who would never be able to afford them otherwise.
The busiest fanfic archive in the world is, last I looked, An Archive of Our Own, an entirely volunteer project. It has its flaws and problems, but there is no question that it has given a platform to, at this point, literally millions of people who might otherwise been excluded by lack of technical ability or funds or networks.
Yes, I expect it prevents some other group of people who might have sold archive software from doing so. It's not obvious to me which is more important.
posted by praemunire at 12:28 PM on May 29, 2019 [4 favorites]
Volunteer labour done for love / recognition / aesthetic pleasure might not be scabbery exactly, but it's going to have a pretty similar effect if it becomes the norm and leaves little or no room for other people to get paid.
Yes, this. As someone who has dealt with a few people who tried to argue/manipulate me into working for free (despite making it as politely clear as I can that I do not), I am less than sympathetic to anything adding fuel to that entitlement. If you want to create for your own joy, that's great, and I think most creators of all stripes have some kind of publicly available work, but it seems bananas to me to pick a fight about how you should be able to give your work away when the article writer concedes that they believe creative work in their field is underpaid.
posted by tautological at 6:41 PM on May 29, 2019 [5 favorites]
Yes, this. As someone who has dealt with a few people who tried to argue/manipulate me into working for free (despite making it as politely clear as I can that I do not), I am less than sympathetic to anything adding fuel to that entitlement. If you want to create for your own joy, that's great, and I think most creators of all stripes have some kind of publicly available work, but it seems bananas to me to pick a fight about how you should be able to give your work away when the article writer concedes that they believe creative work in their field is underpaid.
posted by tautological at 6:41 PM on May 29, 2019 [5 favorites]
The thing that people do not seem to get--and I must say it baffles me that they do not get it, because the examples are all over the place--is that by promoting capitalist institutions and ideology in your creative space you are effectively inviting someone else to come in, make money from it, and still scam you. 98% of participants will end up disposable temporary labor units for some huge and market- (and thus aesthetic-) distorting intermediary. I don't know how anyone expects another outcome here in 2019.
If I thought a fervent embrace of capitalism by all artists would lead to everyone making rent and putting money away for retirement, I might feel different about it. I don't see that it does.
A large part of the problem is that we have, through many different ways, shamed creators for treating themselves as being in a business and treating their creative labor as labor. The result is that we've created a pool of individuals who have been shaped into prey thanks to our cultural impetus. To me, the answer is to acknowledge that we've done this, and to actually give creators the tools to protect themselves - not only education, but also support when they demand to be fairly compensated, which is something that has been sadly lacking.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:02 AM on June 2, 2019
If I thought a fervent embrace of capitalism by all artists would lead to everyone making rent and putting money away for retirement, I might feel different about it. I don't see that it does.
A large part of the problem is that we have, through many different ways, shamed creators for treating themselves as being in a business and treating their creative labor as labor. The result is that we've created a pool of individuals who have been shaped into prey thanks to our cultural impetus. To me, the answer is to acknowledge that we've done this, and to actually give creators the tools to protect themselves - not only education, but also support when they demand to be fairly compensated, which is something that has been sadly lacking.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:02 AM on June 2, 2019
« Older Lunch Boxes | The Northwest Animation Festival Memorial Omnibus Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
This problem is pervasive in the language used to discuss the topic. Product. Strategy. Loss leader. The assumption is that to create is to engage in commerce. I can think of a lot of reasons to give stuff away for free, none of which have to do with a lack of self-respect or a sales strategy.
posted by philip-random at 10:38 PM on May 28, 2019 [3 favorites]