You can feel it in your bones some days — the quiet, humiliating grind of being treated like free entertainment, the sensation of standing in a room you built with your hands while strangers file through and take souvenirs you never agreed to give. You post the painting, the poem, the animation that ate half a year of your life; you trim the edges so it will fit the feed, caption it with a small, hopeful throat-clear, and watch as people wander through like it’s a gallery with no door. They click “like,” say “so talented,” save it to a folder called inspo, and then they leave, their footprints dissolving into a metric you are told to be grateful for. There is no ticket, no threshold, no pause in which anyone asks what the piece cost you to make or what it should cost to see. There is only the number and the next number and the thrum of the machine reminding you that visibility is a loan whose interest compounds hourly.
You return tomorrow because you have to stay visible, because the algorithm starves what it can’t predict, because the culture told you this is how you “build an audience” and you believed it long enough to begin building it out of yourself. You feed the room with hours that might have been sleep or health or a conversation you keep promising to have with the person you love. The myth of the starving artist used to mean a stubborn fidelity to vision; now it describes the employment condition assigned to anyone who dares to make something not immediately monetizable by a platform. The art remains yours; the environment is leased to you minute by minute, provided you perform.
The Free Labor Loop
Let’s be clear: the internet didn’t democratize art so much as it democratized access to artists while centralizing profit somewhere you will never be invited to tour. Platforms don’t make culture accessible because they cherish it; they need a river of attention to float their ads, and so every drawing, song, essay, and dance becomes unpaid labor routed through a funnel that converts your time into their revenue. The varnish is community; the ledger is advertising. Between those two words stretches the distance where artists subsidize the party and are then asked to applaud the results.
They sell your reach back to you with the same theatrical sincerity a casino uses to comp your room; they make you work for exposure, then invoice you for the privilege of being seen. We — I, we, artists — have internalized the lie so deeply we frame exploitation as opportunity, thanking people for “engagement” the way clerks thank customers for crumbs. We post link in bio like a rosary, whisper apologies for daring to mention price, rehearse gratitude so diligently it begins to sound like confession. The truth is simple, and it’s ugly: the modern internet runs on the unpaid labor of creative people whose work is treated as a limitless natural resource, like wind or tide, provided we keep spinning.
Every feed hums like a factory floor lit by someone’s stolen hours; every scroll shaves a sliver from a day you will never get back. We’ve mistaken access for equity and exposure for income because we were told the conversion would come later, after we’d proven ourselves obedient to the cadence the machines prefer. Later is the bait. Later funds the present with your future. Later rarely arrives for most of us, except as a receipt.
Attention Isn’t Payment
A like is not rent, a share is not groceries, and a repost doesn’t buy back the hours it took to make the thing, even if the repost is adorned with praise that briefly warms your hands like a lamp. Somewhere along the line, we were convinced it might — “grow your audience,” “monetize your following,” as though attention naturally alchemizes into income if you collect enough of it, as though the mere presence of a crowd guarantees a door where tickets are taken and counted in a room with actual walls. It doesn’t. Attention is the raw material platforms package for sale; the audience is what they sell to advertisers; your page is the quarry.
You don’t get paid in attention; you are the thing being sold. The architecture is elegant in its indifference: creators supply a steady stream of material, platforms aggregate it into an experience, advertisers pay for placement, and the cultural halo around “creativity” is used to launder the fact that most labor here is uncompensated. Your reward for unpaid work is a number designed to make your next unpaid hour feel rational. We learn to chase metrics like oxygen — a necessary condition for survival — forgetting that oxygen alone doesn’t feed a body and that bodies doing creative labor are, in fact, bodies with literal needs. The algorithm grants a blush of validation, and validation pretends to be survival. You can’t eat the feeling that you’re finally being seen, though it can keep you awake long enough to make more.
The Fame Threshold
Money does flow — you can watch it glide like a river through the center of the city — but it rarely detours into your neighborhood until you cross a visibility threshold the system itself refuses to define. Once the machine recognizes your face as profitable décor, once your name becomes a safe bet for brands, once the spike appears on the graph often enough to be forecastable, then the invitations arrive carrying terms that smell like citrus: rates, retainers, “partnerships.” Before that, the mere act of asking to be paid is treated like a breach of etiquette. People recoil. They will tell you you’re arrogant, that you should be grateful anyone’s looking, that charging for your art before you’re “known” is absurd, that you are “limiting access,” as if access were not already limited by time, by attention, by the accidents of who the feed elects to bless.
Here’s the trap that keeps the loop intact: you can’t become known without giving it away, and you can’t get paid until you’re known. The system forces years of self-subsidized production and calls it “building a platform,” as if you are a contractor who forgot to invoice yourself, as if some future patron will reimburse the ground you poured. The starving artist myth goes digital and gets a dashboard; the artist no longer starves for vision but for proof — proof of virality, proof of “market fit,” proof that you can consistently perform your process in public without flinching. We mistake endurance for legitimacy and exhaustion for worth, then wonder why the work starts to mimic the graph instead of the heart that once drew it.
The Emotional Violence of Gratitude
If you’ve ever been thanked for “sharing your gift,” you know the sting beneath the sugar; gratitude becomes the performance expected instead of wages, a politeness tax levied at the moment you consider drawing a boundary. We are trained to be endlessly thankful — for the views, the likes, the miracle of still existing in the feed — because gratitude oils the machine and makes your discomfort palatable to those who benefit from it. “Thanks for looking.” “Thanks for reading.” “Thanks for the exposure.” We hear ourselves say the lines and feel the small collapse of a person apologizing for their own hunger.
Exposure is not an opportunity; it’s radiation. It burns the soil where future work might have grown because it convinces you that sunburn is the same as warmth. Gratitude — real gratitude — is a relationship between maker and witness; the etiquette we’ve learned is a performance that disciplines the maker into smiling while their boundaries erode. The smile has a job: to turn labor into a favor, to transform an invoice into a thank-you note, to launder a structural deficit through individual manners. Gratitude weaponized becomes obedience, and obedience is a very efficient way to keep the labor force polite while it disappears itself from the payroll.
The Myth of Free Access
When people say “art should be free for everyone,” what they usually mean is “I should never feel guilty about consuming it,” a desire I recognize because the platforms trained all of us to want the feeling of abundance without the friction of responsibility. Access is a virtue; entitlement is not. But feeds collapse the difference by design. Every timeline teaches audiences to believe art simply exists — untethered from a body, detached from a kitchen table, unconnected to the cost of paper or software or time. The interface smooths every edge until the work seems to arrive like weather: ambient, natural, unowned.
Introduce the smallest price — a paywall, a window asking for $5, the audacity of a tip jar tied to a living person — and the fantasy is interrupted. The internet is allergic to friction, and a gate feels like betrayal in a mall that promised everything open-plan. So audiences reward artists who stay free; algorithms reward artists who post constantly; and everyone wonders why no one can afford to make art full-time, as if we are discussing a mystery rather than an accounting. The starving artist myth isn’t accidental; it’s infrastructure. The system doesn’t want fewer starving artists; it needs them — a constant supply of unpaid, self-motivated labor to keep the galleries full and the feeds alive while the cash registers ring two floors up, somewhere you can’t see.
Every click sustains the illusion that art is infinite. The bodies making it are not. The body is a meter that runs whether or not anyone remembers to drop in a coin.
What We Lose
Every “free” post carries an invisible cost payable by the person least able to absorb it. The artist pays in hours that could have been rest, in therapy bills they postpone, in rent they juggle with a skillset no school teaches, in the slow erosion of the private interior where work learns what it wants to become. The platform extracts the value, the audience absorbs the illusion of abundance, and culture as a whole grows more hollow — fuller of content, thinner of meaning — like a buffet where the food never nourishes, only advertises itself as variety.
We are drowning in access and starving for meaning not because artists have become less capable but because the environment trains the work to prioritize legibility over depth and schedule over surprise. People ask why artists burn out, why communities collapse under their own weight, why everything begins to feel like a performance of process instead of a pilgrimage toward discovery. It’s because we are not just working; we are feeding the machine that eats us and then grading ourselves on how gracefully we disappear into its mouth. Art loses its teeth when it learns to beg; it loses its wildness when it must apologize for existing without a discount code attached; it loses its room to be wrong on the way to being right, which is where breakthroughs usually begin.
The tragedy isn’t simply that artists struggle; struggle has accompanied art since someone first bartered a song for shelter. The tragedy is that the world demands the fruits of that struggle while refusing to admit it costs anything to harvest them — and then calls the refusal to harvest for free “gatekeeping.”
Fuck You, Pay Me (But Make It Polite)
This is where I’m expected to produce a tidy, sponsor-safe list of “sustainable creativity” tips. I won’t. We don’t need a fresher business model with nicer fonts; we need a cultural reckoning that names what’s happening without flinching. We must stop treating artistic labor as public property, stop pretending visibility is compensation, stop applauding systems that only pay once an artist is famous enough to no longer need it. Call it rude if you like; rudeness is often just clarity in a room arranged to reward euphemism.
You want to support artists? Pay them. Buy the book that took three winters. Commission the piece and say the word commission out loud so the person inside you who still apologizes can hear it. Subscribe, tip, license, donate, pre-order, hire, renew. Whatever verb works in your budget — use it. And when someone says “I can’t pay, but it’ll be great exposure,” translate the sentence into its true grammar: “I want your labor for free because the environment convinced you that’s normal.” It isn’t normal. It is theft with manners. The “polite” version of “fuck you, pay me” is not a smile; it’s an invoice.
Politeness doesn’t pay the rent. Precision does. A price is a sentence that says: this took a life to make, and I live in that life.
The Mirror and the Bill
If this makes you uncomfortable, good; discomfort is recognition arriving in real time, the click of a mirror finding your face. The work on your screen did not simply appear. Someone made it, alone at a table, trading a finite number of mornings for the possibility that the algorithm would be kind and that a stranger’s attention might become something sturdier than a metric. We keep talking about supporting artists like it’s charity; it isn’t. It’s maintenance. You pay for water, electricity, the municipal systems that make a place livable. Art is one of those systems, except the pipes are people, and they break when you pretend they are fixtures.
The internet turned every artist into a free gallery and every gallery into a billboard; it taught us to walk through rooms without noticing the cost of keeping the lights on. A culture that won’t pay its artists is a culture auditioning for a future without them. Eventually the well runs dry, the gallery goes dark, and the free entertainment stops — not as a tantrum, not as a boycott, but as the physics of human limits asserting themselves. What remains is a silence that does not apologize. In that quiet, we might finally understand what the ticket was for: not to purchase a person, but to sustain the conditions in which the work could continue to arrive with its spine intact.
Support independent creativity through the Mutual Aid Fund or by exploring the Shop: Made by Me | Oddities & Convenience. If you’d like: you can follow us on Medium, itch.io, or on ko-fi as well.