Creating Bluey: Tales from the Art Director • Hacker News Board

Re: Creating Bluey: Tales from the Art Director

#51

Post by AstroBen » Sat, May 03, 2025, 2:29 PM UTC

suddenlybananas wrote: post #49

bobxmax wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exploitation? Thousands of people are getting paid $90k to paint pointless characters nobody will ever see. It's not exploitation because one of them succeeds.

It's a technical term. She produced immense value and she didn't receive it, someone else took it. That's exploitation in Marxism. I also don't get where you get these idea that there's this huge glut of artists producing work that's unpopular and getting paid for it . If you're at the point you're getting paid 90k a year, you're working in studios that almost certainly turn a profit.

The vast majority of startups lose money for their founders. So if that happens the founders should have been paid? The workers were the exploiters?

I've hired people first hand for projects that ended up being a flop. They made out much better than I did

Someone has to take the risk. It's not guaranteed it'll be a risk with a positive expected value either

Re: Creating Bluey: Tales from the Art Director

#52

Post by brookst » Sat, May 03, 2025, 2:30 PM UTC

ksynwa wrote: post #33

namdnay wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if Bluey (like most shows people will work on) hadn’t been a huge success, he would still have kept his 88k That’s the inherent trade off in a salaried position - you are trading potential wealth for guaranteed security

Would be cool if there was a middle ground between risking destitution by claiming a share of the income made and giving up your fair share of the billions made in return of a modest salary.

There is! You can negotiate a lower salary and higher participation. Obviously they have to want you, but when a show like this is starting up and not at all sure to even make it one season, an art director who would work for 25% pay and 1% of future profits would be snapped up.

Re: Creating Bluey: Tales from the Art Director

#53

Post by brookst » Sat, May 03, 2025, 2:32 PM UTC

suddenlybananas wrote: post #49

bobxmax wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exploitation? Thousands of people are getting paid $90k to paint pointless characters nobody will ever see. It's not exploitation because one of them succeeds.

It's a technical term. She produced immense value and she didn't receive it, someone else took it. That's exploitation in Marxism. I also don't get where you get these idea that there's this huge glut of artists producing work that's unpopular and getting paid for it . If you're at the point you're getting paid 90k a year, you're working in studios that almost certainly turn a profit.

What studios consistently turn a profit?

They have years where they make hundreds of millions, years when they lose hundreds of millions.

It is weird to want the security of a paycheck, participation in unlikely huge successes, and no exposure to much more likely flops.

Re: Creating Bluey: Tales from the Art Director

#54

Post by Uehreka » Sat, May 03, 2025, 2:35 PM UTC

tomhow wrote: post #44

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

After the number of times I’ve seen people invoke the HN guidelines to trample good spirited discussions there should be a guideline against quoting the guidelines.

Re: Creating Bluey: Tales from the Art Director

#55

Post by pastor_williams » Sat, May 03, 2025, 2:38 PM UTC

suddenlybananas wrote: post #49

bobxmax wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exploitation? Thousands of people are getting paid $90k to paint pointless characters nobody will ever see. It's not exploitation because one of them succeeds.

It's a technical term. She produced immense value and she didn't receive it, someone else took it. That's exploitation in Marxism. I also don't get where you get these idea that there's this huge glut of artists producing work that's unpopular and getting paid for it . If you're at the point you're getting paid 90k a year, you're working in studios that almost certainly turn a profit.

How would her work operate under Marxism? Would she get to keep the immense value? That's not my understanding of Marxism but maybe I'm mistaken.

Re: Creating Bluey: Tales from the Art Director

#56

Post by dahart » Sat, May 03, 2025, 2:38 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #37

polotics wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure you read the parent post? It was not about wealth being immanent at all as I read it, it was about capital ownership granting full access to work-created value.

Doesn’t the British government and/or Australian government own Bluey? What capital is there to own? Maybe Ludo Studios negotiated a piece of the pie for themselves, but I doubt it is much in the grand scheme of things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluey_(TV_series) > It was commissioned by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the British Broadcasting Corporation, with BBC Studios holding global distribution…

The government part is a good point, this is not the best example of a capitalist endeavor.

> What capital is there to own?

The rights you mentioned is part of the ‘capital’ - these days capital and ‘means of production’ certainly involve intellectual property. I think it always did - capital was always referring to ownership - but the mix is starting to lean heavily on intangibles now, with software running so much of the world. The ABC & BBC capital used to include tons of high power broadcasting equipment, but maybe that mostly going or gone now?

Re: Creating Bluey: Tales from the Art Director

#57

Post by suddenlybananas » Sat, May 03, 2025, 2:54 PM UTC

AstroBen wrote: post #51

suddenlybananas wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a technical term. She produced immense value and she didn't receive it, someone else took it. That's exploitation in Marxism. I also don't get where you get these idea that there's this huge glut of artists producing work that's unpopular and getting paid for it . If you're at the point you're getting paid 90k a year, you're working in studios that almost certainly turn a profit.

The vast majority of startups lose money for their founders. So if that happens the founders should have been paid? The workers were the exploiters? I've hired people first hand for projects that ended up being a flop. They made out much better than I did Someone has to take the risk. It's not guaranteed it'll be a risk with a positive expected value either

You know that if an employee works at a start up that goes under, they also face risk right? Like you're aware that people get laid off and fired?

Re: Creating Bluey: Tales from the Art Director

#58

Post by dahart » Sat, May 03, 2025, 2:55 PM UTC

AstroBen wrote: post #51

suddenlybananas wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a technical term. She produced immense value and she didn't receive it, someone else took it. That's exploitation in Marxism. I also don't get where you get these idea that there's this huge glut of artists producing work that's unpopular and getting paid for it . If you're at the point you're getting paid 90k a year, you're working in studios that almost certainly turn a profit.

The vast majority of startups lose money for their founders. So if that happens the founders should have been paid? The workers were the exploiters? I've hired people first hand for projects that ended up being a flop. They made out much better than I did Someone has to take the risk. It's not guaranteed it'll be a risk with a positive expected value either

The entire reason someone takes the risk is for the chance to have a ‘positive’ expected value, which in startup land means the company gets really big, hires a lot of people, and makes a lot of money for the owners (founders & investors) by selling a product for more money than they pay the workers.

Startup investors often treat this like an odds game, expecting that while 9 out of 10 investments might fail, one of them will return better than 10x, which turns into a net profit on investments.

The “risk” might be relatively big for small investors, but it’s quite low for the bigger savvier institutional investors.

Startups are economically interesting, but they are not the majority of the economy. When evaluating parent’s argument, don’t forget to think about companies like Walmart, Amazon, Exxon, and Disney.

Re: Creating Bluey: Tales from the Art Director

#59

Post by suddenlybananas » Sat, May 03, 2025, 2:55 PM UTC

pastor_williams wrote: post #55

suddenlybananas wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a technical term. She produced immense value and she didn't receive it, someone else took it. That's exploitation in Marxism. I also don't get where you get these idea that there's this huge glut of artists producing work that's unpopular and getting paid for it . If you're at the point you're getting paid 90k a year, you're working in studios that almost certainly turn a profit.

How would her work operate under Marxism? Would she get to keep the immense value? That's not my understanding of Marxism but maybe I'm mistaken.

I'd recommend reading about what surplus labour is so that you could better understand the relevant arguments.

Re: Creating Bluey: Tales from the Art Director

#60

Post by lotsofpulp » Sat, May 03, 2025, 3:06 PM UTC

dahart wrote: post #56

lotsofpulp wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn’t the British government and/or Australian government own Bluey? What capital is there to own? Maybe Ludo Studios negotiated a piece of the pie for themselves, but I doubt it is much in the grand scheme of things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluey_(TV_series) > It was commissioned by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the British Broadcasting Corporation, with BBC Studios holding global distribution…

The government part is a good point, this is not the best example of a capitalist endeavor. > What capital is there to own? The rights you mentioned is part of the ‘capital’ - these days capital and ‘means of production’ certainly involve intellectual property. I think it always did - capital was always referring to ownership - but the mix is starting to lean heavily on intangibles now, with software running so much…

I didn’t mean capital in the accounting sense, I meant receiving capital as remuneration as opposed to a salary. The more accurate word would have been equity, but I was using the term polotics used:

>it was about capital ownership granting full access to work-created value.