People often think artists are depressed, unappreciated geniuses toiling away in isolation, only to be truly recognized as the brilliant creatives they were after their demise. Constraints are bad, commercializing their art takes away from the true value and beauty of what they create. If only they were allowed to freely express themselves, we’d get the most spectacular artwork, novels, and screenplays ever created.
This is a ridiculous notion.
Most of the greatest artists and authors throughout history were huge commercial successes of their time. They created for the public, fine-tuned their work, and worked under various restrictions.
Shakespeare had to write for the public to enjoy if he wanted to make a living.
Michelangelo painted his greatest masterpieces because the church paid him to.
Leonardo da Vinci was so famous during his time the King of France claimed him as a close friend and apparently was there for him in his old age and when he died.
Yet we have the romantic idea I mentioned above. These artists were not isolated, they were not poor, they were not overlooked by the people of their time. They were quite wealthy.
Sure, there are exceptions, Vincent van Gogh, for example. He died at the age of 37 after painting over 2,000 pieces and suffering from depression in poverty. However, he is not the rule.
Here’s why:
In order to get away with avoiding working for a living, you have to create something pretty spectacular.
A lot of creative people just got insanely offended by what I just said.
Chill out, I’m a writer. I write stories, I’m not talking down to anyone. But if I just wrote whatever raw idea and inspiration I had onto the page without any refinement or editing, do you know what I’d end up with? Gibberish and garbage. No one would buy it, and I’d be a failure.
The arts are non-essential. People can argue that all they want, but at the end of the day all you need to survive is sustenance and shelter. Of course, other things are important, like social interaction. But as far as getting by day-to-day, that’s all you need. Anything beyond that is, to some degree, a luxury.
People who provide a necessary service, like medical attention, transportation, food, or housing are producing their own means of living. Back in the old days, “producing your own means of living” meant growing your food, building your house, and working all day just to survive. Now, since we don’t have to do all that, I gave it a more modern definition.
Artists don’t produce their own means of living.
Artists cannot survive unless there is someone wealthy enough to decide they can afford to buy whatever the artist is offering. Therefore, the artist has to create something they think the consumer would actually want to spend their money. It’s an exchange, like most things in our culture.
The reason artists like the ones I mentioned are still talked about today, is because they were creating for the public. They were focused on having commercial success. No one wants to live a life of misery, their work only being recognized after their death. Some people may claim they do, but they’re lying either to us or themselves.
If you’re a creative person, remind yourself of this next time you’re angry at the market for not giving you their money or recognizing your talent. It’s going to push you to be better, embrace it and improve.