If you’re freelancing in any creative field in this day and age, then you’ve no doubt seen this short clip, from the fascinating documentary on the career (and immutable personality) of Harlan Ellison called Dreams With Sharp Teeth, entitled
Its a good clip, that’s for sure, and if you’ve seen the entire film, you’ll know its one of many facets that make up Harlan’s roguish ‘outsider’ perspective on the industry. And even though he’s referring mostly to motion picture and televisual media, the principles are the same for freelancers everywhere, regardless of professional title or field.
Which explains why it was adopted as a rallying cry by so many.
People love a good cause. Its in their nature to want to throw their support behind an idea or an action that they feel connected to. That rapid uptake of this one clip in particular, across such a broad range of creative freelancers, made me wonder what
exactly it was they were trying to achieve by getting behind it so enthusiastically. Something felt a little not-quite-right about it all, as though the rousing intention behind the mass-circulation of the clip had missed its mark ever so slightly.
In some ways Harlan’s tirade is very relevant. He articulates concerns about amateurs forever shifting the foundations of the industry through their eagerness for recognition, which in turn leads to their willingness to work for lower rates, effectively undercutting the professionals. This influx of inexperienced creatives has a detrimental flow-on effect for the rest of the industry – not only does it flood it with lesser quality work, it also lowers the expectations of those people initiating (and paying for) the jobs two-fold: firstly in regards to quality of work (aesthetics) and secondly, how much the work should cost (value). Essentially, they can gain access to lesser quality work for lower rates, which in turn makes it harder for professionals (at least those concerned with quality output) to earn what their work rightfully deserves.
This is where we have a problem.
You see, everyone jumped on the Harlan clip, adopting it, in a way, as their new ideological doctrine. The general consensus
seemed to be focused on ‘yes, pay me, pay us, we deserve to be paid’; a concept which, in principle, is a point I wholeheartedly agree with. I know that personally, when it comes to my work, I couldn’t articulate my own thoughts any more clearly. Yet it doesn’t deal with the actual concern, the cause of the tension between (potential) payer and (hopeful) payee in a freelance world. Let’s go back a couple of paragraphs for a second: “They can gain access to lesser quality work for lower rates.” (Yes, I just quoted myself. Deal with it.)
As a skilled creative who’s passionate about the quality of the work I put out, that sentence doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, and I predict it will offend a lot of other creatives sensibilities as well. Why on earth would someone choose to pay for lower quality work? Regardless of whether it was cheaper or not, it makes no sense to any of my creative instincts. Shouldn’t the quality of the work be the most important concern? Then, by extension, shouldn’t it be worth paying more for higher quality work?
That’s it. Right there. That’s (the beginning of) the REAL problem.
You see, a lot of the time, creative freelancers are dealing with people who just aren’t as concerned with aesthetics as they
might be. It’s easy for the freelancer to place it at the very peak of all that is important in their work; this is their creation, their baby, it’s their name, their ego. It’s all at stake. It’s the entire sum of all that they’ve worked for, it’s that one job that is going to propel them into the upper tier of their respective fields. Yet the reality is, a large portion of the industry doesn’t care about aesthetics. When it comes to the bottom line, it just wants to get the job done. No more, no less.
Legendary American designer Saul Bass elaborated on this issue in the
That’s it. Right there. That’s (the core of) the REAL problem.
It’s understandable why freelancers felt such an affinity with Harlan’s message, and why they so eagerly adopted it as their own professional battle cry. However, without understanding the specific problems, the reasons why they felt so compelled to embrace it in the first place, the force of the message rapidly diminishes; without this strength, for all its effectiveness it is, at best, just an empty whimper.
To put it simply, the problem exists due to a difference of principles. What we’re dealing with here are two distinctly opposing discplines: freelancer vs industry, beauty vs commerce. As both Saul and Harlan illustrate, in their own unique ways, the industry, by it’s very nature, splits aesthetics and value into two distinct concerns. The freelancer, on the other hand, ideally views them as a single entity. When aesthetics and value are separated, they have their real problem; with the introduction of commerce, the industry becomes less concerned about whether a job is done beautifully, and instead, becomes more concerned about whether it just gets done.
In this clip, Saul elucidates the most significant reason why that tension exists between freelancer and industry in the first place, and why Harlan’s
clip struck a chord with so many. In essence, the people who felt an affinity with Harlan’s thoughts (and thus took the time to spread his message in enthusiastic agreement) were really identifying themselves as creatives who were concerned equally with both creating beautiful work and being paid for it. Further, as experienced practitioners of their craft, they knew that, in order to create beautiful work, this requires more from them than ‘just enough’ of their creative faculties; they need to invest more time, more creativity, more ideas; they need to expend more energy, experiment more, devote more of their attention; in short, it requires more from them, in every way, to ensure that more of themselves is infused into the work. In this sense, when people started posting Harlan’s clip everywhere, while on the surface they appeared to be saying ‘pay me’, I think what they were really saying was ‘pay me what I’m worth’.
When freelancers start asking to be paid what they’re worth, they are really just trying to merge the two principles of aesthetics and value into one concern. Instead of being a part of an industry that concerns itself with value AND aesthetics, they’re trying to
actively make the industry realise the value OF aesthetics. That’s definitely a cause I can get behind. But is it just an empty cry as well?
I really don’t know. I’m not sure there is a definitive answer to that; one that will apply to everyone out there, working as a creative freelancer. Obviously I’d like to think it isn’t; this is my profession, its what I love to do, its what I love to be a part of; I believe its worth my time and my creative energy. I think from what I’ve seen, the reality is that there ARE opportunities out there that display an equal balance of both the industry and the freelancer’s needs. Its just perhaps they aren’t in the majority. Again, I’m not sure. I think perhaps the one thing that wouldn’t exactly hurt freelancers is being less transparent. I do believe they need to make what they do more visible, particularly to those who are involved in their contracts but not in their professions, allowing the clients to see just how much work, talent, skill and dedication is required to create just one piece. They need to clearly define the differences between their work and those of lesser aesthetic value and place more importance on the role of beautiful work over merely just-completed work.
Above all else, I think we need to realise and acknowledge our own value, and just how much that is worth, and we need to make that clear to every client, for every contract. It’s not their fault they’re trying to save money; they are, after all, just trying to do their job. To really make a difference, we need to start telling them more about what’s required for us to do ours.