4 ms·

Fair enough, but I think it's a simplification of how life really works for most people. For the average person, the choice to become a successful artist isn't

by ldp01 9y ago

Fair enough, but I think it's a simplification of how life really works for most people. For the average person, the choice to become a successful artist isn't a trade off between more money and more satisfaction. If they fail to become successful they will significantly lose out in terms of life's more basic needs, because they won't have enough money. Edit: Don't get me wrong, I would love to agree with OP. But I don't think human society is there yet.

infiniteparamtr 9y ago
I don't think that a failed artist would lose out on basic needs because of money. The average, economically entrenched observer would see a "successful artist" as one getting paid for their efforts. I see a successful artist as someone who is creative enough to acquire basic needs, comforts, and actualization with little or no money - be it through bartering or learning to create for themselves. Success can also come in the form of making statements about society through their medium(s) of choice, and ideally changing the outlook an audience. In this regard, religion and arts were the first forms of software engineering - by the modification of the observers perspective. Of course there is also aesthetic art, which is beautiful for us to admire because it is proof of the capacity of another humans attention to detail. These works usually don't seek to comment on the state of culture.
- ldp01 9y ago
  > I don't think that a failed artist would lose out on basic needs because of money. How many former humanities students do you know? If success just means being happy with yourself then sure, go for it. However this is a retreat from what OP stated: "The World Belongs to Those Who Create VS Those Who Don't". If we are restricting ourselves specifically to artists then, for an average person, becoming a materially successful artist requires capital investment and an appetite for risk (or a lack of understanding of the risks). The capital investment will most likely come from parents in the form of education, food, security, etc. Becoming a successful artist without any of that support sounds like a horrible all-or-nothing proposition with no fall back position. (You have no capital if you fail because you didn't hedge your bets with a steadier/less fulfilling career).
saltedmd5 9y ago
Actually, I think your comment is a simplification: there absolutely is a trade-off between money and satisfaction. That doesn't mean you have to become a starving artist to increase your satisfaction level - just that prioritising x means compromising on y. That might mean working a lower-skilled job you can just clock in and out of so you can focus your efforts and time on other things you care about or even just applying your existing specialism in an industry/company that offers you more creative freedom at the expense of some compensation.
sophiaellis 9y ago
This was meant to be more of a commentary and how much people have switched from spending time on their discovering and acting on their interests to spending hours simply watching others via social media and then feeling frustrated.

by ldp01 9y ago

infiniteparamtr 9y ago

I don't think that a failed artist would lose out on basic needs because of money. The average, economically entrenched observer would see a "successful artist" as one getting paid for their efforts. I see a successful artist as someone who is creative enough to acquire basic needs, comforts, and actualization with little or no money - be it through bartering or learning to create for themselves. Success can also come in the form of making statements about society through their medium(s) of choice, and ideally changing the outlook an audience. In this regard, religion and arts were the first forms of software engineering - by the modification of the observers perspective. Of course there is also aesthetic art, which is beautiful for us to admire because it is proof of the capacity of another humans attention to detail. These works usually don't seek to comment on the state of culture.

ldp01 9y ago
> I don't think that a failed artist would lose out on basic needs because of money. How many former humanities students do you know? If success just means being happy with yourself then sure, go for it. However this is a retreat from what OP stated: "The World Belongs to Those Who Create VS Those Who Don't". If we are restricting ourselves specifically to artists then, for an average person, becoming a materially successful artist requires capital investment and an appetite for risk (or a lack of understanding of the risks). The capital investment will most likely come from parents in the form of education, food, security, etc. Becoming a successful artist without any of that support sounds like a horrible all-or-nothing proposition with no fall back position. (You have no capital if you fail because you didn't hedge your bets with a steadier/less fulfilling career).

saltedmd5 9y ago

Actually, I think your comment is a simplification: there absolutely is a trade-off between money and satisfaction. That doesn't mean you have to become a starving artist to increase your satisfaction level - just that prioritising x means compromising on y. That might mean working a lower-skilled job you can just clock in and out of so you can focus your efforts and time on other things you care about or even just applying your existing specialism in an industry/company that offers you more creative freedom at the expense of some compensation.

sophiaellis 9y ago

This was meant to be more of a commentary and how much people have switched from spending time on their discovering and acting on their interests to spending hours simply watching others via social media and then feeling frustrated.