alt Hacker News> 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
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?).
> That model depended on personal wealth or (more often) patronage.
"They make something for themself, .."
For the vast majority of people this means doing it on the side, in addition to their day-job. I've known a lot of artists in my time and we all have day jobs. You do art for yourself because you love to create, not expecting to make any significant money on it.