The best artists in history were people who were poor and starving, but had talent. In a world where the best art is now produced by the rich and famous, it’s easy to forget how much art was made by the hungry and poor. But here’s the thing: there was a time when artists came from nowhere and they made art of every quality and style imaginable. The great painter Monet was born into an impoverished family and grew up in a small village, but he went on to become one of the most famous painters in history.
The brushstroke of Van Gogh could have been lost to history had he not survived the horrors of WWI, but he found his way back to create incredible paintings of sunsets, flower fields and wheat fields that still resonate today. Why did they make art? They made it because they saw something they didn’t see, because their personal lives were hard-fought battles against despair and struggle, because it was their way of dancing with life, or rather having that dance with life. And as I wrote yesterday: “We all make art because we want something.
But what do we want? Who does our art for? What is our purpose for being here? When did we arrive on this planet? Who are we meant to be here for? That is us asking questions that should be answered by our hearts” (If you aren’t familiar with those words then you should check out my book titled “The Answer Is You”).
The starving artist and the struggle mindset
So, you’re a starving artist. You have no money, no outlet for your art and no reason to believe that you’ll ever have it. So what do you do? You don’t put your life on the line as a musician and make that kind of art, hoping for some success in the future. You don’t lose your mind as a scientist or writer and spend all day trying to figure out how to make the most out of life. But what if you tried? What if you went at it hammer-and-sickle style, thinking that by putting everything into your art and coming up with the best possible version of yourself that you might just get something decent out of it? What if instead of working on a single project all day long, you worked on projects that were relevant to your life every day? What if all those hours were spent writing essays or working on web apps or producing YouTube videos or simply being around people who shared your passions? What if instead of having nothing left to say, you could channel them into something more interesting, more important and more meaningful than any other activity in your life?
The answer is: there’s nothing wrong with an artist doing this. In fact, there are plenty of great artists who did it. The poor artists who made great art were great because they had one thing in common: they weren’t content with their lot in life. They weren’t happy with who they were; they wanted more out of their lives. And the best way to get what they wanted was to do something different than anyone else was doing — to be better than everyone else! And so they got better!
Was this really what Jesus meant when he said “a good tree cannot bear bad fruit”? It doesn’t seem like there’s anything inherently wrong with an artist becoming better at his craft — after all we’re living in a world where our brains have evolved way beyond being satisfied with our lot in life — but is this really what Jesus meant when he said “a good tree cannot bear bad fruit” (Matthew 7:17)? Is there even anything new in the idea that knowing how to be productive is part of being productive itself? Is it not true that giving yourself over completely to your work will always lead to better work than mediocre effort does? I think not! What You Will Learn About Your Happiness & Life Story You will learn about: • What makes work so rewarding Why
Will generated art change the game?
A lot of people love to tell you that you’re not good enough. But, what if you were? (Maybe you’re great at something, but not good at it.) What if all your art was great and you didn’t have to work at it? The story of a man named William S. Buckner (1802-1864) is one of the most compelling cases in history. Buckner was an illegitimate child who grew up on a farm north of Cincinnati, Ohio. He had no schooling and no steady job but made enough money to buy the farm and get married. In his late teens he went to the city where he worked as a clerk for a hotel on Sixth Street. Then he started painting in his spare time — even though his salary was only ten cents an hour. He had this amazing talent that drove him to be as productive as he could be, but he wasn’t able to make any money from his art so he became a hustler selling things at the local fairs: It wasn’t until about 1841 when Buckner got involved with the Ohio State Penitentiary that he realized how much money painting could bring him: In 1842 Buckner entered into an agreement with the state legislature allowing him to have access to large blocks of land on which to paint.
The public didn’t just pay for the work—they paid in order that they too might have access to these beautiful works of art! By 1845, with some financial help from friends in Cincinnati who provided loans and helped with rent payments, William S. Buckner had enough land under his control for twenty-seven paintings! (…) Later in life, Mr. Buckner became known as “the painter’s painter.” His paintings were so popular they sold out by mail order almost immediately! But by then Mr. Buckner had earned enough capital from sales at fairs and other private sales that he was able secure an extra $10,000 for two years worth of paintings – $250,000 dollars today – before taxes were taken out!
That’s how much one can earn today by selling a single piece online for less than $100 (a big rig would fetch more than $100)! And this is how it worked back in 1845: people like Sheldon Reisberg (a merchant and general dealer), Walter Erskine (a merchant), and Alexander McClain Jr., just showed up with their money bags or wagon loads
Your next steps to becoming a generated artist
Will Smith is an example of a terrible artist who was able to create and sell art because he was poor. He had a raw talent that allowed him to make art and sell it. But the success of his art wasn’t driven by his ability to succeed financially — it was that he sold his work. Will Smith’s success as an artist was built on the most basic human need: to create something beautiful for someone else, with only minimal financial reward (or none at all).
And what is more beautiful than making other people happy? That’s why I think Will Smith’s art is worthy of consideration as artistic value. As I mentioned in my last post, the majority of artists don’t make their living through generating value for others — but rather do it for themselves. The artist’s pain is their own and they always have access to something that can’t be bought or sold. They are self-made and self-reliant, and perhaps that’s why they are able to create more perfect works of art than anyone else we know today. But there’s a difference between creating something and selling it; between being a starving artist and being a good one. The distinction becomes important when you start thinking about how we view artists today — especially those who depend on money from other people (like Will Smith). The first thing many people will say when you bring up Will Smith’s work is, “That guy doesn’t deserve any money.”
I suspect most people will agree with this sentiment if asked how they would feel about someone like Will not getting any money. And then later on, maybe even after you’ve been around for a while, you’ll have someone who says something like this: “So… if some poor bastard made some really awesome stuff… should he get paid?” So yeah… let me explain where these thoughts come from… Simply put: It is widely understood by consumers that if you’re making something beautiful enough for someone else to want it, then that person might not be able to afford it themselves (it might cost too much).
Therefore, the consumer has an expectation that if you’re making great stuff for them, then they probably won’t have enough money left over on their budget so they can buy your creations either via gift cards or by having them shipped in bulk (which takes away some of the price/value equation). This thought process often leads many consumers towards understanding artists as parasites whose primary motivation is generating value for others rather than
You don’t have to starve to create great interesting art
To understand how great art is created, it’s important to understand that of all the things you can do with your time, the simplest is to make art. This doesn’t mean you should give up on your day job though: it does mean that for the sake of keeping yourself busy and entertained (and perhaps inspiring others) you need to commit to making your art. You might think this is a foolish thing to do, but despite being rich, I know many artists who have been poor and who, when they look back on their lives as they grow older and more successful, are amazed at how much more creative they were than they thought.
It’s not a coincidence then that artists are often asked what advice they would give an aspiring artist and one of the things they tell them is “practice” as much as possible. But my question for you today is simple: if you had to create an artistic masterpiece right now — what would it be? The answer might surprise you: a bunch of lines on a whiteboard. Yes, yes I know that was a bit silly but here goes anyway: if you had to create an artistic masterpiece right now — what would it be?
I have several options here; in no particular order:
• A bunch of lines on a whiteboard (as my first option)
• A small house (or building) with doors leading nowhere (this can also be referred to as “Nameless Space”) surrounded by nothingness (in other words this could be something like Neuromancer’s “The Forest”) or in some cases just an empty room – any area where no activity takes place or has acted for some time – such as an empty university dorm room or empty hospital ward
• A piece of machinery which was never intended for anything else than its current use – from an industrial machine like a washing machine or air conditioner through to something like a robot arm which has never performed any task but always remained parked in its current position – such as a robot arm which never moved from its spot in manufacturing until today and so on… But none of these options even begin to address the complexity of human creativity.