That model depended on personal wealth or (more often) patronage. Because the supply of wealthy patrons was limited, it meant that you had fewer artists pursuing their visions. Everyone else needed to find menial jobs.
Now, we democratized access to patronage, but it means that to support yourself, you need to deliver what gets you the most clicks, not what your soul craves.
I sort of wish we still had both models, but I think that wealthy patrons have gone out of fashion in favor of spending money on crypto and AI.
"They make something for themself, .."
For the vast majority of people this means doing it on the side, in addition to their day-job. I've known a lot of artists in my time and we all have day jobs. You do art for yourself because you love to create, not expecting to make any significant money on it.
Today, more people have the opportunity to dabble in art than ever before.
> Everyone else needed to find menial jobs.
That doesn't mean you can't create art. Anthony Trollope worked for the post office. Einstein, who externalized imagination in somewhat different way and attributed much to art, was a patent clerk. New York and LA are filled with waitstaff-artists. A friend hired a moving company that almost exclusively hired artists as movers (I know - they weren't too skinny?).
Art, like anything else, lines up somewhere between a hobby and a career. Similar to athletes, somehow the cream just rises to the top.
You never hear about “starving athletes” I guess is what I mean.
It’s a life of constant travel, crazy hours and very little money.
> Art, like anything else, lines up somewhere between a hobby and a career.
Says who? Are you an artist? Many artists say - and I'm know nothing to doubt them - that they can give up art like you can give up food.
> Similar to athletes, somehow the cream just rises to the top.
No idea where you get that about art. Many complain that a lot of shlock rises to the 'top'. And how do we know about the cream that didn't rise? Many artists aren't discovered until they're old or dead - Van Gogh being the over-repeated example. But even Van Gogh!
It's easier in sports - you can win on the field; there's frequent, objective evidence. But that applies to clearly superior elite, who have access to training. With access Messi would probably be on top regardless, but the number of Messis is a statistical error. People who are professional-level but lower down the pyramid, whose names you don't recognize but who make up the overwhelming majority of athletes, often say it depends mostly on relationships. There are plenty of people like them, and if they get a job depends on their relationships with coaches, agents, etc. You hear about athletes that seem perfectly capable, some even good or very good, but getting no calls.
I mean, just because this isn't a trope doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you know anything about trying to get into pro sports of literally any type, you'll know that it's a lot of sacrifice for a long time. Most athletes who aren't literally the best in the world aren't paid a huge amount, and have to travel a lot to attend events to make that money.
Go to the 'hood and see the one returning pro ball player interacting with forty no-money kids trying their hardest to make it.
All of the kids would be better off pursuing a higher-probability-of-success career (including unionized manual labor), but that's not what's happening.
Those are some starving athletes.
You know, the kind of recognition that can only come when good fortune also smiles on such a dedicated worker.
I guess not all that many can relate unless they are doing creative work themselves.
But that's always been the first thing that comes to mind when I hear "starving" artist.
A certain one-eared Dutchman comes to mind...
I [sort of] remember a movie, once, that had a kid basically doing a "Don Quixote" on the world, where his vision of everything was kind of wondrous.
Don't remember it well enough to recall its name, though...
For elucidation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_van_Gogh
He died a pauper, but his work is some of the most valuable in history.
Yes, sometimes I can't even guess why. Drunk and missed the target? Those little arrows are poor GUI.
It could happen.
For about the last year, about the only time I log in is to upvote somebody, and usually a while after I read their message. It can bug me for some time when it's one where I just can't settle for them being downvoted, or alternatively some upvotes are never enough.
Once logged in the sky can be the limit on my own comments sometimes, as I've mentioned before I guess all I have ever done is now known as responding to prompts.
I have a number of Commissioner Dreyfus-level haters. One pops up, from time to time, screeches, and throws poo. It’s kind of cute, actually.
I cry myself to sleep, every night, over it.
Imagine a comment with a string of poo comments beneath it. It would get their point across and the silliness would save bad feelings and flamewars. @dang should try it on April 1st or something. I'm serious - it would lighten things up a bit around here and, as I said, dispel a lot of white lies and manipulative posts.
If you post poo, that's the only character allowed in that comment, and maybe your only response allowed in that subthread. Also, you can't downvote the parent, and nobody can respond to or vote on a poo post. The UI would just be knowing how to manually enter the correct Unicode codepoint. New and recent accounts can't poop - bathrooms for regular customers only!
(I've now revised this comment about five times as I've refined my idea.)
The library's on GitHub and I could spam a link to it here, but it's much more exciting to spam a link to a poem that finally gets to use it - https://rikverse2020.rikweb.org.uk/poem/flaw
This is how many artists have worked. They make something for themself, and one day they show it to someone else ... or they just get the urge to share it more widely, often without the hope that anyone will really be interested. Or they keep it for themself.
I think Tolkien is in that group, for example. But don't get the wrong idea from an extreme outlier: much of the time, others aren't interested, or not many are. Sometimes, nobody is interested until after you've forgotten about it or passed away. Who cares? That's one reason you need to make it for yourself. Also, I think that otherwise it provides much less expression and insight into another person, which is at the core of art. There is a fundamental human need to 'externalize the imagination'.