A good artist - a successful artist?

[Meister]

who has more chances to reveal - the secured artist or the artist, who must constantly strive for? or is it solely a question of talent?

[Glasha]

I think if "equal talent" (hypothetically possible to prevent this) if necessary to the survival, of course, likely more. Still, determining here-the degree of talent.

[Евгений]

Сообщение от Meister

who has more chances to reveal - the secured artist

We secured an order of magnitude more likely ..

[Meister]

Сообщение от Eugene

I secured an order of magnitude more chances ..

I think the opposite ... a person in a difficult situation, more inventive and had more active brain works ...

[DSF]

Сообщение от Meister

but interestingly, if we imagine that the artist is provided from infancy that he would not have to think what to eat tomorrow, and for how much and to whom to sell their work, he can concentrate fully on their work and find out whether we have about him? Why should he sell something that, if he already has everything?

Here's the first thing that came to mind - Bosch: "In 1478 Bosch had married a rich patrician Aleida van Merverme, whose family belonged to the top of the urban aristocracy.'s Marriage to a rich patrician put him above the circle of respectable burghers, to which he belonged by birth. Life Bosch nebolshom flowed into his wife's estate near 's-Hertogenbosch, where the artist, procurement and independent of the orders could give vent to his rich imagination. "" On the material well-Bosch platimyh showed high amounts of tax specified in the surviving archival documents. similar situation and a Vermeer of Delft. He was also married to a wealthy aristocrat, lived in the manor, only wrote 2-3 pictures a year and gave them a token money to his friends - the baker and printmaker. The way he had 14 children.
Toulouse-Lautrec - also yes. Here's another - Manet. "Family of Man has an annual income of 25,000 francs, which allows you to take it to the typical middle class bourgeoisie." After his father's death in 1861 Edouard Manet received a total of 40 000 francs of capital, which enabled him to hire a manager and a stable income. By the way a worker's salary then was in Paris for about 2 francs per day.
But here is found. Renoir said, according to the recollections Vollara: "Imagine a Cezanne, if he did not have the rent and he would have to wait for customers!"

[dedulya37]

Сообщение от DSF

Note from Meister
but interestingly, if we imagine that the artist is provided from infancy that he would not have to think what to eat tomorrow, and for how much and to whom to sell their work, he can concentrate fully on their work and find out whether we are about it? Why should he sell something that, if he already has everything?

Сообщение от DSF

That's the first thing that came to mind - Bosch

Сообщение от DSF

Yes, that's still found. Renoir

Guys, you dig so deep?
Look at the work of Alexander Grits, son of Alexei Mikhailovich. Normally people lived, not poor, but not in luxury. And if not imminent death, we have all witnessed a superb artist. But he did before his death much has been written.

[iosif]

It is better to be healthy and rich than the poor and sick.
The thing is motivation. If an artist can not work, the money he was not a hindrance. And if lazy and casual, then poverty will not help him become more talented.
Lautrec ruined not money, but illness and alcohol.

[Zenia]

I want to put their 5 cents in the topic, as the subject for me has always been relevant. I am very blond.
Academic schools do not have our own style. Graphics: often just a meditation overturned on paper. Painting .... if it can be called ... what I paint colors, neither painting, in the usual sense of the word, nor of the object ... in short, not an artist deal with the definition of creativity, and art critic .... my business to draw, when drawn .... But here's the problem! When I realized that drawing is not to feed the children, put the artist's career on the shelf, until better times. I draw very little now .... Those works that drew 10-20 years ago, especially not rvus not display or sell. One Swedish gallereyschik asked me a couple of weeks ago: selling, I his schedule for 1000 dollars ... NO! As the number of hours spent on it, it cost me more! I'm not hungry, and I like my work, to part with them for 1000 bucks, I do not want. But as you can guess .... It does not add any I know, as an artist, not operating costs.
So they are hanging at home on the wall ... A TRO regard to painting, or how it is called, so in general under bedded room folded. Cloth 13 meters long, difficult to hang out at home ..... : D

P.S. : Black are depicted UV-inks, and much more glamorous looks in the dark under UV-light. Noticed that for the most part thought-provoking and makes one want to talk .....

[K-Maler]

Сообщение от DSF

absolutely agree with you, but I do not asserted. I just wanted to say that the commercial success or failure should be treated calmly and not do the tragedy of what you paid 10 000 USD, not $ 10 000

The issue consists of two parts: how much is "a living basket artist" and how his life to understand the artist himself. In the old days was taken for granted that the artist belongs to the same social class (upper) and that the recipients of his art and his work paid accordingly. Then everything changed, only the artist's needs remain the same, ie need to maintain itself at the proper level, not to be declassed. Well, careerists and bad guys no one has canceled ... There is a very ambitious people. It is strange that while discussion and promotion of the artist "and claims against the artists, who want part of the pie, they are not servants, and with an outstretched hand, like, should not stand ...

[Veronic]

Сообщение от K-Maler

It is strange that while discussion and promotion of the artist "and claims against the artists, who want part of the pie, they are not servants, and with an outstretched hand, like, should not be ...

All very complicated in our kingdom.
On the one hand there is public opinion (which, incidentally davleet over most minds as the general public and the small circle of collectors and dealers) that an artist should be poor in any case should not sell his paintings, but only keep them for the museum, well the very rare cases, it should give them. Then this artist considered to be a genius, even for life.
On the other hand history has many examples, that the artist has in life can be rich.
These two views can not both fit in the head, so there is a contradiction, and I think that it will long continue to cause controversy.
Therefore, let each artist decides for himself that he was closer, and choosing .... not suffering from pangs of conscience (if successful), and from hunger and poverty (with oblivion).

By the way, very often still happens that the tragic fate of the artist gives a great excuse to gather the fruit sellers to follow his paintings. So it's not for nothing that artists humiliated, there is a subtle meaning.