I agree entirely. Now, Blake wasn’t destitute. He and his wife had a good life. He had friends and patrons and customers. He made most of his money engraving a

I agree entirely. Now, Blake wasn’t destitute. He and his wife had a good life. He had friends and patrons and customers. He made most of his money engraving and illustrating other people’s work. E.g., Edward Young’s Night-Thoughts — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-Thoughts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-Thoughts. Blake didn’t make much money from it, but today the poem is mostly remembered because of his engravings. Once we invented capital, we used to do this with patronage — the artist had to please their patron. More civilized cultures IMO do this with public support for the arts. Almost any major city has a library supported by tax dollars, public sculpture and artwork likewise. Amongst richer societies, I believe the USA does this less well than many. It’s difficult for it not to turn political, or for groups not to get up-in-arms because the public art doesn’t pay sufficient homage to their diety of choice. But yes, as I’ve said before, we’re more than rich enough as a society to pay any artist to do whatever crazy thing they fucking want to, and we’d all be better for it.