Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why are artists poor?

telegraph.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 36 posts

Re: Why are artists poor?

#11

Post by gnaritas »

cwan wrote: post #6
muckster wrote: post #3

Why are rich people so uncreative?

Quite arguably, rich people are often the most creative (or at least high income earners are judged by their benefactors as being the most creatively useful in society). Entrepreneurs need to be incredibly creative in innovating and meeting market demands. Sure, we may channel it differently but that doesn't make it any less creative and even arguably more so.

All rich people are not entrepreneurs, nor are all entrepreneurs rich. Moving the goal post a bit don't you think?

Re: Why are artists poor?

#12

Post by Goladus »

cstross wrote: post #7

More to the point, where does this bizarre cult of the "artist", creating works of genius in complete majestic isolation from the governing realities of life in the real world, spring from? Whence the poet starving in his garret? There's a similarly odd attitude to learning in some sectors of academia; from one perspective, education is a worldly enabler -- and from another, it is an end in and of itself and any hint…

More to the point, where does this bizarre cult of the "artist", creating works of genius in complete majestic isolation from the governing realities of life in the real world, spring from?

It's been around since the late 19th century, at least: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_boh%C3%A8me

But Mozart wasn't really treated like a genius working in majestic isolation. Famous and popular maybe, but that was it.

So I'd say aristocrats were subject to culture in this way, as well.

Re: Why are artists poor?

#13

Post by cwan »

gnaritas wrote: post #11
cwan wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite arguably, rich people are often the most creative (or at least high income earners are judged by their benefactors as being the most creatively useful in society). Entrepreneurs need to be incredibly creative in innovating and meeting market demands. Sure, we may channel it differently but that doesn't make it any less creative and even arguably more so.

All rich people are not entrepreneurs, nor are all entrepreneurs rich. Moving the goal post a bit don't you think?

Not what I said, but many rich people are entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship is one of the fastest ways to income mobility. It's also one of the more difficult ones. That being said, other high income earners tend to also need to be highly creative - from senior managers to consultants, to yes, sometimes even bankers (sometimes unfortunately so). To suggest however that "rich people are so uncreative" is however not only overstating the point/post but arguably, rather untrue.

Re: Why are artists poor?

#14

Post by abefortas »

tjic wrote: post #8

Why are artists poor? That's the wrong question. In a state of nature, EVERYONE is poor. Getting out of poverty means one thing: creating something that other people consider to have value, and then exchanging it for cash. Heinlein had rules for writers: 1) you must write; 2) you must sell what you have written. This is true for all artists. It's also true for all doctors, accountants, and software engineers. If an i…

Depending on the meaning of value. I value lots of works of art very highly, but I've hardly ever considered buying art.

I think art can have value without being particularly saleable. And with certain kinds of art, the fact that it's popular and lucrative may even be a sign that it's crass and inauthentic. Think Damien Hirst and Andy Warhol.

Re: Why are artists poor?

#15

Post by cwan »

cstross wrote: post #9
cwan wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite arguably, rich people are often the most creative (or at least high income earners are judged by their benefactors as being the most creatively useful in society). Entrepreneurs need to be incredibly creative in innovating and meeting market demands. Sure, we may channel it differently but that doesn't make it any less creative and even arguably more so.

This would be more convincing if we all started out on a level playing field -- as opposed to, say, getting into Harvard because of daddy's connections, failing upwards to the limits of temporal power, then abolishing the inheritance tax that (horrors!) might hold our buddies back. Hint: America isn't classless -- it has a hereditary aristocracy. They just don't put titles like "Lord" or "Baroness" in front of their…

This argument I'd concede partially to - that there are social advantages some of us have. This needn't however be an argument about income mobility - which I think is a separate issue (and I do believe exists), but even those who get there because of social advantage does not mean that to stay there one does not need to be creative and at least have a valuable work product. This isn't to say that all rich people (particularly if it was inherited) are creative, but I would argue on average, most high income earners must be because of the value that others are willing to pay for.

Re: Why are artists poor?

#16

Post by indigoshift »

Speaking as a Starving Artist, I've noticed that part of the problem lies in artists trying to achieve success by aping corporate methods, which rarely work for an individual artist. I did that for awhile, and it got me absolutely nowhere.

There's also this attitude (in the US, at least) that you're a failure if you're not instantly successful. Rare is the artist who takes the time to build a solid foundation of fans/patrons. You're going to eat a lot of ramen in those years, but the base you build will be solid enough to build a house on.

It also helps to be unflaky. The article mentions artists as being elitists at least once, and that's an unfortunate stereotype. It's a stereotype you have to fight against in the minds of your fans, and you've got to fight it in yourself sometimes, too.

I'm still poor--by standard American standards. However, I live in a 4-bedroom house with a bedroom all to myself as a studio. I have cable internet, A/C, two cars, and a couple different computers--one for working on and another which serves as a file server for the studio.

It's slow and it's grueling, but it's making me a better, healthier person. Making your own bread (for example) is not only cheaper, it's better for you. And the stupid impulse purchases I made when I had a Day Job are no more. I sold off many of the things which were cluttering up my house just because I bought them on a whim. My credit cards are used only in emergencies, and are always paid up ASAP.

I'm currently working on $650 worth of private commissions. Ten years ago, that meant that I'd be doing 12 projects at the same time. However, after taking the time to work up a rock-solid fanbase, I can happily say that the $650 is coming from only three different projects.

Now, if that sort of thing could be a little more regular...but that's the preconceived notions talking again.

It's a rollercoaster ride, but it sure beats all the years I spent answering the phones in my tech support Day Job. :)

Re: Why are artists poor?

#17

Post by blankity_blank »

branden wrote: post #4

Ugh: The job of all artists is now self-promotion. In an age in which the old cultural gatekeepers are being swept away, the most pressing challenge of creative artists is to build their own brands. And it’s the Internet which provides creative talent with easy-to-use and cheap tools for their self-promotion. In a sense this is true, but you could replace every instance of "self-promotion" with "creation" and you'd h…

I didn't see any cynicism in article, and I don't think that, in general, self-promotion needs to involve anything cowardly or cynical. I do think that anyone who believes their tweets will be viewed as some kind of artistic statement must have a very cynical view of their audience.

Re: Why are artists poor?

#18

Post by tjic »

abefortas wrote: post #14
tjic wrote: post #8

Why are artists poor? That's the wrong question. In a state of nature, EVERYONE is poor. Getting out of poverty means one thing: creating something that other people consider to have value, and then exchanging it for cash. Heinlein had rules for writers: 1) you must write; 2) you must sell what you have written. This is true for all artists. It's also true for all doctors, accountants, and software engineers. If an i…

Depending on the meaning of value. I value lots of works of art very highly, but I've hardly ever considered buying art. I think art can have value without being particularly saleable. And with certain kinds of art, the fact that it's popular and lucrative may even be a sign that it's crass and inauthentic. Think Damien Hirst and Andy Warhol.

> I value lots of works of art very highly, but I've hardly ever considered buying art.

Then either the art you admire is way out of your price range (I admire Alphonse Mucha, but I don't own any originals!), or the artists you admire are doing a poor job of letting you know that their work is affordable, and would add to your quality of life.

Re: Why are artists poor?

#19

Post by gnaritas »

cwan wrote: post #13
gnaritas wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All rich people are not entrepreneurs, nor are all entrepreneurs rich. Moving the goal post a bit don't you think?

Not what I said, but many rich people are entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship is one of the fastest ways to income mobility. It's also one of the more difficult ones. That being said, other high income earners tend to also need to be highly creative - from senior managers to consultants, to yes, sometimes even bankers (sometimes unfortunately so). To suggest however that "rich people are so uncreative" is however not onl…

I didn't suggest that, I was merely pointing out that your reply didn't make much sense.

> Many rich people are entrepreneurs.

Yes, and many rich people aren't, so what.

> Entrepreneurship is one of the fastest ways to income mobility.

Agree, but no one was talking about entrepreneurs, you just injected it when he said "rich".

> That being said, other high income earners tend to also need to be highly creative

No one said anything about high income earners either. Rich is about net worth, not about income. Lots of trust fund baby's out there who could hardly be called high income earners as if they did something for it.

He trolled you with a vague statement and you swallowed the bait hook, line, and sinker and injected your own ideas about what he meant to attack. You're tearing down the straw-man you setup yourself.

Re: Why are artists poor?

#20

Post by gnaritas »

cwan wrote: post #15
cstross wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be more convincing if we all started out on a level playing field -- as opposed to, say, getting into Harvard because of daddy's connections, failing upwards to the limits of temporal power, then abolishing the inheritance tax that (horrors!) might hold our buddies back. Hint: America isn't classless -- it has a hereditary aristocracy. They just don't put titles like "Lord" or "Baroness" in front of their…

This argument I'd concede partially to - that there are social advantages some of us have. This needn't however be an argument about income mobility - which I think is a separate issue (and I do believe exists), but even those who get there because of social advantage does not mean that to stay there one does not need to be creative and at least have a valuable work product. This isn't to say that all rich people (pa…

> but even those who get there because of social advantage does not mean that to stay there one does not need to be creative and at least have a valuable work product.

Nor does it mean that because they're there they're somehow more creative than people who didn't have those opportunities and couldn't get there.

> but I would argue on average, most high income earners must be because of the value that others are willing to pay for.

Just because people are willing to pay for something, doesn't mean producing it is creative. Being creative is certainly "a" path to wealth, but it's hardly the only one, and having wealth does not in imply that you are creative or any more creative than the average person.

Now of you restrict the "rich" people you're talking about to the subset that were self made, from rags to riches, then yes, I'd agree that they are very likely much more creative than the average person; but you haven't done that.

Post reply on HN