why do we keep undervaluing creatives

on the writers' strike, etc.

Thank you for reading Hmm … That’s Interesting! If you enjoy the newsletter and want to support my work, please consider becoming a subscribing member.

---

If you're above a certain age (read: 30), odds are you remember a favorite TV show that was canceled, delayed, interrupted, or otherwise affected by the 2007 Writers' Guild strike. Or rather, by studios refusing to negotiate for fair pay with the WGA forcing writers to strike to receive just compensation for their work. For me, it was Friday Night Lights and Gilmore Girls, because of course it was. 

We all enjoy art — we all read, watch TV shows, go to the movies, visit museums, play video games, listen to music. We need it. It's part of what makes life bearable, what elevates it from merely existing. Every week, there’s a new line on Succession that makes the Internet lose its collective mind (I still see ludicrously capacious tweets on a regular basis), a new snippet of a late night monologue that goes viral. That’s art! That’s adding value to our lives! And yet, when it comes time to compensate creatives fairly for their work—for making our lives more interesting—, people balk. As if the reality artists exist in is somehow independent of financial needs and concerns.

Because when talking about money and art, there is always a quirky undercurrent of, oh, well, you know artists—they're fulfilled by the creative process. The reward is in their art. And theoretically, that's true! Most creatives I know did not get into their respective fields for money, because that would make them stupid, and if they could they would do it for free. If it were possible to live even remotely comfortably in this world without a certain amount of money, they would. But we all know that it is not possible. And expecting creatives to suffer, even as they enrich the coffers of multi-billion dollar companies—because art is its own reward—, is not only unfair, it is cruel.