Celebrating Creativity Without the Scarcity Complex
The Starving Artist Myth
0:00
/566.047347
- Romanticizing the starving-artist archetype, rooted in elitist patronage, perpetuates harmful stereotypes and inequities.
- Glorifying suffering creates a toxic cycle of exploitation, gatekeeping, and elitism.
- True creativity demands communal support and fair compensation, not heroic scarcity.
I was disgusted by my last visit to a Van Gogh immersive exhibit installation. The artwork drenching the walls in deep creative analysis of the human condition wasn't the problem. My favorite part was the exhibit itself. It was the whorish capitalism happening in the lobby before the exhibit that bothered me.
Everything you could imagine had Van Gogh's work printed on it. Pens, pins, butt cushions, journals, posters, paper weights, and I wouldn't be surprised if they printed Starry Night on toilet paper. It looked like Shopify drank too much the night before and vomited all over the room after a regretful one night stand. Meanwhile I couldn't stop thinking about how the legendary artist died broke, mentally ill, isolated, and unrecognized.
I wanted to flip the tables like Jesus to the merchants in the temple of god. They profited over $250 million in just ticket sales. The fact I was the only one mad tells me that society as a whole sees something acceptable about the economic fate of the starving artist while the wealthy capitalize on the profundity produced by their madness. The myth of the starving artist is that this suffering is an expected price to pay for vision. The false archetype of the struggling bohemian perpetuates harmful stereotypes that suffering is intrinsic to creativity, and sugarcoats systemic inequities devaluing artistic labor.
I.
19th century patronage from elites, like the Medici family, began the precedent of artist dependency on institutional backing to erect their careers. Far be it from the common folk to collect a fraction of funds to welcome artist's to their own streets so the artist can buy a meal before they depart.
Granted there's a certain degree of business savvy in selling to the highest bidder. I make it a point to remind my artist friends that they're highest paying clients are going to be Fortune 500 companies needing media to arrange their advertisements. However, elite exclusivity makes art less accessible to the poor who need inspiration to get through the years of hard times. Who may even need creative drive to perhaps push back against the injustices that keep them down.
It also creates a faux meritocracy where economic marginalization is romanticized as a necessary path to artistic genius. Which feeds a toxic capitalist notion that art is only valuable insofar as it yields a dollar. That pipelines directly into unbecoming attitudes of cultural elitism among artists who alchemize their suffering into a stirrup they use to hop on their high horse as though their pain puts them above other artists somehow. The fog of these myths paints the artist as some mysterious figure atop a mountain that sees what others can't because their vision is amplified by the price of supreme bohemian poverty.
All of this is complete bullshit.
Artistry is something that every single one of us is capable of. Creativity is innate to the human experience. Smearing paint across the wall in a frustrated expression of the human experience is as normal as taking a shit after eating. And sharing it is not exclusive to the masturbatory motions of pretentious elitists. It's necessary for moving the human psyche of the individual, and the collective, forward and promoting empathy.
Rekindling the Flame
Restoring Love of Craft Through Self-Compassion Rekindling the Flame0:00/793.5477551× * As adults, we often abandon the spontaneous, joyful creativity of our childhood due to mounting responsibilities, external judgments, and the pressure to monetize or perfect our art. * Social expectations and fears of being “uncool” or “unproductive” push us
Derek GuzmanDerek Guzman
Disorienting the purposes of creativity and artistry is at the risk of the artist's health. For example, 19th century poet John Keats was glorified for ending his career vomiting blood due to tuberculosis. He died within months of the first drops of blood pouring out of his mouth. Yet the popular social critics praised the poets condition as some kind of crown bestowed among only the most authentic visionaries. Spes phthisica was a phrase used in the era translating to, "hope of consumption," referring to the paradoxical hope of tuberculosis patients while their health declined. An honorific title granted to those with hopeful visions through senseless hardship. French author Alexandre Dumas would write of John Keat's early demise:
“It was the fashion to suffer from the lungs; everybody was consumptive, poets especially; it was good form to spit blood after any emotion that was at all sensational, and to die before reaching the age of thirty.”
His colleague, a poet named Théophile Gautier, wrote:
"…I could not have accepted as a lyrical poet anyone weighing more than ninety-nine pounds.”
To add insult to the injury, later declines in artistry would be blamed on decreases in tuberculosis patients. Needless to say, the medical sector had no understanding of tuberculosis labeling it "consumption." And these townsfolk praising the presence of this illness had no clue it was tied to poverty and child labor. But we do, and we should be better. Not just with regard to how tuberculosis affects patients, but how we vainly glorify senseless suffering as a throne for artists to sit on.
Moreover, these attitudes toward artistry make it impossible to be respected as a creative worker in this society. It sweeps art under the rug as a hobby unafforded by those who take life seriously instead of as a valid profession. It's damaging not just to the creative sector, but to society which needs more than utility for progress but forward-thinking inspiration. Time and time again we've seen that city monuments and office decor increase morale and productivity among the people. For example, there's a study showing that beautification of offices with art increases worker productivity by 15%.
II.
Capitalist individualism itself is counterintuitive to the path of creative work. "Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" attitudes make absolutely no sense in the context of art history which is a communal social act. We can't repair the starving artist by asking them to pull themselves up when the economic value of their work is at the intersection of product and audience. The collective audience pulls up the artist by the bootstraps; not the individual.
Elitist nostalgia for a time of "pure" artistry romanticized by oppressive 19th century depictions of the starving artist perpetuate marginalization of creatives through gatekeeping. Everyone can call themselves an artist regardless of their skill level. Whether they reach the heights of the greats in skill is something entirely dependent upon the economics they're able to sustain their efforts on by accessing food, housing, healthcare, education, and fairly paying patrons.
Sisyphus in the Studio: Finding Joy in the Eternal Struggle of Creation
Why pushing your creative boulder up the hill is the point (not the problem). * Sisyphus’ eternal and meaningless boulder rolling parallels the unending frustration artists experience with creative blocks. * There’s an absurd joy that comes with the steady process of failures that pave an artists road to their masterpieces.
Derek GuzmanDerek Guzman
Predatory hosts sell dreams to artists with their guard down by paying in so-called "exposure" instead of money. Amateur musicians carry thousands of dollars of equipment into bars where they play for drunks who won't remember the name of the person they're hitting on for a one-night stand, much less the name of the act on stage. Exposure from local music scenes are a joke to the realistic career goals of a musician.
All of which contributes to cutting diversity of voices in art. There are brilliant minds around the world internalizing the tragedy of the human experience, who are harbingers of perspective, unable to bring the world their message due to gatekeeping and financial walls. If the society of Van Gogh's era hadn't failed him perhaps we'd have seen a final catharsis of his work instead of him taking his own life.
We need to put heroic scarcity to bed. There is no hero of poverty. There is no glory in poverty. There is no creative fiber to be gained from senseless suffering. And it doesn't validate creative genius which is only developed through sustained long term effort. Hardship is just ugly. If we're not going to expect someone to become a doctor by enduring brutal periods of personal neglect, then there's no reason to subject artists to this mythical stereotype.
III.
What are we doing wrong? Artists have to choose between creating for themselves, or for a paying audience. Some amateurs indulge in only creating for themselves while confused no one is interested in supporting them. Business has to be approached as creatively as the art itself if the artist hopes to support themselves. Finding that intersection can be an arduous task for folks who want to create without hating themselves for becoming a commercial slut.
However the Information Age presents an incredible opportunity for creators to find an audience that organically appreciates their work enabling authenticity and communal support. But tech bros insert themselves as middle men creating a new kind of obstacle. Creators become dependent on algorithms that flip on a dime, suddenly limiting their reach. Platforms take something like 10% which seems like a small number until we're working with big figures, and suddenly we're taking food out of the mouths of artists without contributing meaningfully to their movement. Sure they provided the platform, but when that platform gatekeeps algorithmic virality and pinches a percentage from starving artists they start making solvable matters worse.
Find Your Voice Like a Thief
How Stealing the Swag of Artists That Came Before You Builds on Art History Find Your Voice Like a Thief0:00/533.551021× * All great artists, from Da Vinci to Michelangelo, built on the ideas of those who came before them, transforming rather than merely imitating. * Leonardo da Vinci’s
Derek GuzmanDerek Guzman
Which is why I've begun developing my own creator platform; as a creator for creators. It's a big project that's going to take a lot of time and resources, but I aim to produce a decentralized and fair platform that helps creatives of all mediums support themselves from a beginner skill level to a world class master without taking a percentage cut. My cyber ambition doesn't stop at helping the individual, but focuses on collectivist philosophy enabling collaboration by connecting people who don't even know they need each other's help yet. Business and marketing education will be built into the pillars holding the platform up showing users how to become successful entrepreneurs with balanced finances.
This is a deeply personal project for me as there's a lot of art I've been sitting on because I don't have the means to present it according to my vision. And I know I'm not the only one. By solving my own problems I seek to proliferate the entire sector and encourage art in society. When the product is ready to be promoted for a beta test I'll share it here on my blog. Until then...
You guessed it! I gotta eat. Please consider supporting my writing and human centric projects with a paid subscription so that my artistic vision and cyber liberation dreams aren't stopped by starvation.
