Discussion for article #228671
People should get paid for their work. The cultural norm in the entertainment industry violates this and exploits entertainers. We can’t blame Lena, she is just following the cultural norm. If Lena Dunham is about anything, it is about upholding cultural norms.
Did these people agree to the deal when there was no money attached and then demand money? Dunham is between a rock and a hard place. Her need for public relations makes it impossible to do what should be done, tell these performers to take a hike. This is the offer. If you don’t want it, don’t take it. Then you really showed me.
I find it interesting that the people whining about this are not the artist themselves, but people not in the business and have zero knowledge of what it is like to start out in the entertainment business. And that opportunities like these are far and few between.
Sounds like much ado about nothing…
Many a time I’ve done work in my field(s), Education and IT, for free, calculating that it would lead to paying gigs down the road. Some did, some didn’t, it was my choice to roll the dice.
Unless you are a big name, you don’t get paid shit. Most acts will perform for nothing, or for peanuts, just for exposure. Same as it ever was. I can’t tell you the number of venues, festivals, clubs and the like, with I have performed with a band for nothing, over the course of 50 years. And only the headliners at the festivals were drawing a pay check. Opening for a big name act always pays peanuts. That’s the reality, folks. Like AC/DC said, “It’s a long way to the top if you want to rock and roll.” Cut Lena some f*cking slack already.
I am glad TPM broke this important story. I smell a Pulitzer…
3 Likes
The entertainment business is basically a giant circle jerk of exploitation. Ms Dunham is just playing by its rules which, of course, doesn’t make her any less culpable.
What I don’t understand is why the press treats her as some sort of great artist when in reality she is a basically a young woman who seems to whine a lot.
Meanwhile Malala won the Nobel Peace Prize. So maybe there is some sort of balance.
1 Like
Did TPM compensate black comic for his witty comment?
“Work for me for free. It’s for your own good.”
1 Like
Leaving aside the issue of exploitation on the media industry (because this is flatly what it is), the real problem many have with this case is that Dunham didn’t “pay any dues” herself. She never had to work for free (er um… "exposure) for anyone else because of her parents. She’s the classic born on second base, thinks she hit a triple and thus should be paid more than the rest of the team.
1 Like
How did I end up at Buzzfeed ?
2 Likes
Years ago I learned sideshow skills (sword ladder, bed of nails, that sort of thing). Before I started my teacher made me swear never to perform for free because it makes it harder for established people to get paying gigs. I met other people who do this professionally and they all had the same attitude. It wasn’t a matter of requesting the same price as an established person, just getting at least a token amount: a penny per ticket, a couple of beers. The point is not to devalue the work too much.
There is a problem with creative work being expected to be done for exposure, and when working to pay your dues it’s supposed to be playing shitty venues and basements. Opening for an established act is supposed to be something you do after paying dues (i.e. at a professional scale). Obviously not the same amount as the headliner, but definitely not just for “exposure”.
It’s not at all limited to Dunham, and she’s probably being a little unfairly singled out here (if you’re wondering, no, I’m not a fan, I never watched a Whit Stillman move and thought “boy, I wish there was more explicit sex in this”). There’s plenty of visual artists, writers and performing artists who are taking free gigs in the hopes of some ephemeral exposure, and plenty of outlets willing to not pay them to do so. (In all my time spent with performers and artists, the only ones who steadfastly insisted on at least nominal payment were sideshow artists and professional wrestlers, so maybe coming from seedy carny roots has some advantage.)
3 Likes
This is the reason we have minimum wage laws, because desperate people are willing to work for free if that’s their only option. And that’s not considered a good thing. It’s called exploitation and just makes it that much harder for anyone else to get paid for their work.
I mean, heck. When conservatives insist that minimum wage is ok because it’s for teenage trainees, they get mocked for it. Why is it ok that trained entertainers are forced to work for free? This is the reason actors have a union and are required to be paid for being on major TV shows.
Oh, and for the record, anyone who refers to themselves as “a creative” deserves mockery until they realize how silly and condescending that is. Like, oh. You’re one of the magical ones, unlike us uncreative slobs who can only but bask in your amazing glory.
Seriously, the world needs writers and entertainment is great, but try not to put yourself on a pedestal separate from the rest of us. We all have our thing, and there’s no such group as “creatives.” Everyone can be creative in their own way, even if they have to work for a living. Being creative doesn’t make you “a creative,” no matter how you classify yourself.
1 Like
Oh, and one last thing: The reason aspiring writers don’t get paid is because nobody is profiting from their work. And if you’re writing books, blogposts, or screenplays and nobody wants to use them, of course you’re not going to get paid. But if someone uses your work to make money, you should be paid for it, period. And anyone who gives away their work to someone who is profiting from it is not only screwing over themselves, but screwing over all other writers as well.
Similarly, if you’re in a stage show for a local theater that doesn’t make real profits, or a comedy club that basically serves as an open mic for aspiring comedians, it’s one thing. But if someone is using you in their shows and profiting from your work, then you deserve to profit from it as well. Exposure is nice, but if they weren’t profiting from your talents they wouldn’t use you in their show.
And if everyone refused to be exploited by people who refuse to share their profits, then everyone could get paid. That’s the basis for unions and something every liberal should support.
2 Likes
TPM, please don’t publish this stuff without an editor. It seems to happen on the weekends, so maybe it just filler, but a simple grammar check is needed.
This is just absolute bullshit. Stockholm Syndrome much?
I’ve worked in music for my entire career. And of course,
I’ve done plenty of things either for free or at a much lower rate than I deserved.
But that didn’t make me feel any better about being taken advantage of.
It’s absolutely true that sometimes taking a hit on money can create long term opportunities for an artist. But more often than not, nothing happens after a gig like this. You get a good story out of it, and that’s about it. Playing the “exposure” card as a headliner who has a nice fat bank account is simply preying on an artist’s vulnerability. The idea that someone with this kind of advance can’t afford to cough up two hundred bucks for an opener, when they more than likely dropped that on dinner for themselves is just self-justifying assholery.
If your skills are sufficiently advanced that you can get a slot opening for
someone like Dunham, then you’re at the point where you
already are either merely good, or both good and drawing in enough of an audience
that you’re adding value to the bill. Either way, you deserve to be paid something.
And this is not to mention the fact, that you meet the same folks on the way up as you do on the way down. The people who pay you well when they don’t need to, those are the people
you remember and who you go out of your way to help when you can. Why not err on the side of being decent? That’s what people remember. The cost for the headliner is small, but the good will it engenders is no less valuable than the exposure.
1 Like
Bingo. I work for a company that pays its interns well over minimum wage. We also expect them to contribute significantly. We expose them to our rich company culture, and expect them to exemplify that culture from day one.
The difference between exploitation and offering opportunity is clear. If the employer profits from the labor then paying the employee is the only thing to do. Calling the employee an intern, or a consultant, or a contract hire, or an opening act—the nomenclature is irrelevant. Pay them something.