←back to thread

301 points lukeio | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.196s | source
Show context
mmooss ◴[] No.46235044[source]
> created solely for myself; I never had the intention of making it [...] mainstream

This is how many artists have worked. They make something for themself, and one day they show it to someone else ... or they just get the urge to share it more widely, often without the hope that anyone will really be interested. Or they keep it for themself.

I think Tolkien is in that group, for example. But don't get the wrong idea from an extreme outlier: much of the time, others aren't interested, or not many are. Sometimes, nobody is interested until after you've forgotten about it or passed away. Who cares? That's one reason you need to make it for yourself. Also, I think that otherwise it provides much less expression and insight into another person, which is at the core of art. There is a fundamental human need to 'externalize the imagination'.

replies(5): >>46235948 #>>46236061 #>>46236451 #>>46236833 #>>46238193 #
nospice ◴[] No.46236061[source]
> This is how many artists have worked. They make something for themself, and one day they show it to someone else

That model depended on personal wealth or (more often) patronage. Because the supply of wealthy patrons was limited, it meant that you had fewer artists pursuing their visions. Everyone else needed to find menial jobs.

Now, we democratized access to patronage, but it means that to support yourself, you need to deliver what gets you the most clicks, not what your soul craves.

I sort of wish we still had both models, but I think that wealthy patrons have gone out of fashion in favor of spending money on crypto and AI.

replies(2): >>46236457 #>>46237716 #
mmooss ◴[] No.46237716[source]
There are plenty of impovrished, struggling artists - it's a cliche - and especially unknown ones creating for themselves.

> Everyone else needed to find menial jobs.

That doesn't mean you can't create art. Anthony Trollope worked for the post office. Einstein, who externalized imagination in somewhat different way and attributed much to art, was a patent clerk. New York and LA are filled with waitstaff-artists. A friend hired a moving company that almost exclusively hired artists as movers (I know - they weren't too skinny?).

replies(1): >>46239710 #
irishcoffee ◴[] No.46239710[source]
I sincerely never understood the “starving artist” thing. Everyone needs to be able to provide for themselves. The whole starving artist thing always came across (to me) as someone who refused to work because… art?

Art, like anything else, lines up somewhere between a hobby and a career. Similar to athletes, somehow the cream just rises to the top.

You never hear about “starving athletes” I guess is what I mean.

replies(5): >>46239716 #>>46240176 #>>46240206 #>>46240305 #>>46240352 #
mbg721 ◴[] No.46239716[source]
You do sometimes hear of Olympians in the non-big-pro-league sports whose families make enormous financial and lifestyle sacrifices to let them train and compete.
replies(1): >>46240211 #
1. mmooss ◴[] No.46240211[source]
That was true for all Olympians before they allowed professionals to compete.