"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.
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.