Why it is believed that a good artist should be poor and unhappy

2024 Author: Richard Flannagan | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-15 23:55

Contemporary artists have successfully debunked the myth that they must certainly look eccentric, wearing an old beret over their long hair and a vest. Most of the creators look stylish and even impressive. But they did not manage to deal with all the stereotypes. For example, there is still a belief that a talented artist should be poor. And certainly suffer. Whether it is unhappy love, bad habits, or just life circumstances, poverty should not be the only vice. Where did it come from and are artists and other creators really poor and unhappy?

If we immediately turn to the facts, then UNESCO, for example, determined the period between painting a picture and its worldwide recognition (of course, in general, provided that it is recognized) at 50 years. A huge time, if we consider it in the context of human life, and not world history. Isn't that why most of the artists, without receiving recognition during their lifetime, died in poverty? This means that this stereotype is nothing more than a life observation, folk wisdom.

Moreover, this principle is suitable not only in the case of artists and their creations, but for any creator and innovator. Be it a creative person, a mathematician or a programmer. Society and the market economy do not immediately accept something conceptually new. Of course, if we talk about artists, then if this creator decorates what is being sold now, then he can earn money, but it is worth announcing innovation, then everyone will purse their lips skeptically. Therefore, there is a big difference whether an artist works for the ages or for the market. However, there are examples that prove that one does not interfere with the other.

But the fact remains that ingenious creations are created after ordinary work, and the latter is not at all distinguished by sublimity. However, not all creators are so wise, as a rule, possessing a complex and impulsive character, they did not agree to such compromises, which doomed them to a poor existence.

Poor people and dollar lovers

Salvador Dali called himself a "Dollar Lover", thereby outlining his own ambitions. He turned his name into a brand during his lifetime and actively used it. Of course, without his talent, attention would not have been drawn to him, but we should pay tribute to the level of hype with which he surrounded himself, would be the envy of modern celebrities. What is his story with his wife Gala. After all, the rest of the men would consider it shameful to divulge such details about their family life, but Dali willingly told everyone, including in an interview, that his wife lives with lovers in a nearby castle, and he himself comes to her only by invitation.

And this story that has become widespread? Say, Dali, when paying for dinner at a restaurant, made a small drawing on the reverse side. Such a check for the restaurant was more expensive than the dinner itself, so it was never cashed. For the artist, it was worth nothing.

Despite the fact that he never worked for low wages, he always received a huge number of orders. This often led to the fact that he brought down his own market, reducing the cost of individual work. However, instead of taking time out, he began to work even harder, literally flooding the market with paintings, sketches, illustrations, furniture projects.

When other celebrities had not even thought about filming in advertising, Dali had already recommended buying a certain brand of chocolate from the screens. Then there was an advertisement for a car brand, an airline, and even chewing gum. However, a real scandal at customs revealed the attitude of Dali to money - he loved it very much.

A tangible income was brought to him by graphics, the authenticity of which he confirmed with his own signature. But, as it turned out, he was not going to draw each separately. They were printed on a metal plate, and blank sheets signed with a meter were prepared in advance. It was them in the amount of 40 thousand copies that were found at the customs. The sheets were cheap, but Dali signed them very quickly. On average, he could sign up to 70 thousand dollars per hour.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the artist community was tacitly divided into those who worked (or at least sought) to work as financially productive as Salvador Dali, and those who honored exclusively unrecognized beggar geniuses like Vincent van Gogh. During his life, for a more or less decent amount of 400 francs, he sold his only work "Red Vineyards". All other works were evaluated after his death. He not only failed to earn, he could not even provide himself with any decent existence.

His family always condemned him, society did not understand and did not accept, and the only thing that comforted him was painting. He worked very hard, although this cannot be called work, because he never received payment for the paintings. Is it possible to accept posthumous fame and eternity in the memory of descendants as payment?

Van Gogh wrote that if he could earn at least a thousand francs a year, he would have started painting at full mile and with even greater pleasure, but this did not happen and the brilliant artist left with resentment and unrecognized talent.

An idealized image of a hungry artist

To be frank to the end, not only the artists themselves had a hand in idealizing the image of the unrecognized genius. Franz Kafka in his story "Hunger" describes a man who had a very peculiar attitude to art (however, like Kafka himself) and the whole essence of his self-expression was in a hunger strike. Now it would be called a performance, but apparently at that time they were not really perceived, because people gazed, gazed at the artist dying of hunger, and then carried out his body with a pile of straw.

Kafka quite ironically demonstrates his attitude to the union "artist-money", believing that a real genius and creator must suffer, "starve" for his vision of art. And if he earns well, is well fed, is well-off and is in harmony with the current government, then he is a servant of the capitalists. The real genius is always unknown during his lifetime and, preferably, beggars.

Knut Hamsun in his novel "Hunger" also had a hand in creating the same image, describing the writer with hallucinations from hunger. Hemingway also believed that a writer should be hungry in order to better think about the eternal, in order to be one step above his dined readers. However, the writer himself gloriously resting at resorts and lived happily ever after, not at all striving for an ascetic lifestyle.

Perhaps poverty to some extent unties the hands of the creators of paintings and not only. An artist, unrecognized by anyone, will create in the channel that is close to him, without trying to impress critics, without taking into account the wishes of future buyers and much more. He has the opportunity to experiment without looking back at the opinions of his colleagues, he is not afraid that the public will not approve (she did not approve any more), he embarks on the comprehension of deep topics and eternal values. Is this not the prerequisite for creating a masterpiece?

Others perceive poverty as freedom, because if an artist gives all of himself to painting, without bothering with banal and routine work on the market, then he has much more time for experiments and painting itself. Pablo Picasso said that "inspiration exists and comes during work." That is, you should not lie on the couch waiting for the arrival of the muse, who will lead you by the hand to the canvas and allow you to draw a masterpiece worth millions.

Rock musician Nick Cave said that inspiration doesn't exist at all. Calling creativity work, he did not diminish the role of talent in the least. But talent alone is not enough, you need perseverance and work. A lot of work. Only then do brilliant things happen. Therefore, the recommendation “to create eternity after work” is rather a theoretical formulation, practically unrealizable in reality.

Suffering and fear for the artist

The only thing that everyone, without exception, expects from any work of art - emotions. Joy, delight, horror, disgust, fear are not important, the main thing is that the energy emanates from the picture, otherwise, why is it all? Can an artist who slept, had a hearty and tasty breakfast, whose house is full, his beloved wife is busy with dinner, and children (necessarily healthy and heterosexual) fill the house (certainly bright and spacious, built for their own fees) with their voices and laughter, suddenly create a masterpiece that would turn other people's souls inside out? Doubtful.

Many artists deliberately accumulate negative emotions: fear, anger, resentment, they help to give their work the necessary level of energy and sharpness. However, these troubles had nothing to do with their talent, but rather stemmed from their social status and lifestyle. The same van Gogh suffered from mental disorders from childhood and suffering was a part of his life.

Often, geniuses have mental disorders. The latter, despite the fact that in fact they destroy the personality, in the best periods, can become the cause and basis for the creation of masterpieces or scientific discoveries. But is this a sufficient payment for years of suffering, torment, anxiety and depression? Schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, anxiety, depression - all this can and pushes a person to express themselves through art, but makes life, both the person himself and his loved ones, simply unbearable. Often the life of geniuses ended in suicide - another evidence that the suffering was unbearable.

Russian art artel

In 1963, as many as 14 artists left the Russian Academy of Arts. And besides, with a scandal. They were not given the opportunity to choose the subjects of the paintings that were to be submitted to the competition. So many artists, who knew each other and suddenly freed themselves from their main occupation, decided to found their own community. They united in an artel and tried to earn what they could - by painting pictures, including to order.

They even gave a kind of advertisement in newspapers with an indication of the list of services they provide and their cost. The range of services was very diverse, artists and iconostases, and portraits, and paintings painted. And all this with oil paints, and watercolors, and pastels. Tutoring services were also offered.

Life in an artel cost the artist about 25 rubles a month, and the collective search for orders was a very good idea and brought a good profit. For example, the price for portraits started at 75 rubles and more. For the most part, the price depended on the experience and talent of the artist, his name, and not the size of the canvas.

Many artists, whose canvases belong to the world's masterpieces and are now valued at a fortune, were in fact created by masters who create art for art's sake. Their consciousness, which does not fit into the framework of normality, and therefore the non-recognition of their talent during life, for many became the reason that their names are immortalized in the annals of history. Descendants, as if feeling guilty before the genius, cultivate his talent, see God's spark in his creations, and the tragic story of his poverty and deprivation only complements the overall picture.

Often, geniuses, in addition to a complex character and oddities, also possessed mental deviations. Some geniuses of the USSR, who left their mark in science and art, owe this to their schizophrenia, which allows thinking outside the framework..