Most artists make next to nothing on their art. A vanishingly small portion can live off it, and fewer uetearn well.
The number is probably higher for the elite, most renowned artists, and it might well benefit society to ensure a portion of the best can live of it, but in many places that is already hard enough that a substantial portion of the ability of even elite artists to live off their art often comes down to government funding and grants, followed by patronage that is more about status than ability to commercially exploit a work.
That's not to agree with the notion that real artists can't want money too, because I don't agree with that, but I also don't agree that most artists have made art for gain.
At least not as a primary motivator, as if gain was the main goal, it's usually a bad one (e.g. the average full time UK novelist earns below minimum wage from their writing)
Throughout the history of the last two millennia or so, most artists will have made art for patronage, for direct reimbursement (artisanal objects that happen to be art, or for the church or some noble) or for barter.
There will have been very few serious artists in history who could afford to do it for the love, because art materials cost money, and time making non-functional art is time not earning enough or working enough to live.
Art as a pastime is a very modern invention, surely.
That is
This is kind of the point, in that tying art to the need to make a living used to severely limit the production of art. As we saw this difficulty being overcome, we saw an explosion in artists, and a whole lot of those unable to get paid for their art turned out to produce amazing things. Van Gogh being one of the obvious examples coming out of that.
But even before that I'm not convinced that about your claim. I'll concede that most artists whose works have survived for a period will have done so for patronage, because others will have faced severe limits on production. E.g. Haydn being able to be a court musician for the Esterhazy's ensured his work was played in front of an audience and associated with status, and so secured it distribution that someone composing and playing in less privileged positions did not enjoy (and indeed that Haydn himself did not enjoy at the start of his attempts to make a living as a musician after he could no longer sing in a choir).
For large parts of time we can expect most art to have gotten lost because it was not written down and recorded, or because it was produced or kept in ways that hampered its longevity.
E.g. already under the Chinese Tang dynasty we know that art was seen as an acceptable pastime and that while patronage happened, it was not a particularly desirable job, to the point that one of the earliest known Chinese painter was by a man - Yan Liben - who apparently became ashamed when he was referred to as "the imperial painter" and warned his son not learn to paint to avoid his fate of being known for it, because it was lower status than his actual paying job in the imperial administration, and his painting was something he at one point was ridiculed for.
People draw or make music or create stories whether or not we get paid for it, and even in situations where it's seen in a negative light, and we've done so for tens of thousands of years.
> This is kind of the point, in that tying art to the need to make a living used to severely limit the production of art. As we saw this difficulty being overcome, we saw an explosion in artists, and a whole lot of those unable to get paid for their art turned out to produce amazing things. Van Gogh being one of the obvious examples coming out of that.
Fair. But the argument I am responding to implies that making money is antithetical to making art — that artists can’t think about making money if they want to make true art. This is, frankly, patronising bullshit in the fullest sense (not least because it denigrates artisanship in the sense of making truly artistic useful objects).
Arguing for a world where artists should not be respected if they are as focused on their income as anyone else is insulting, not least when great art makes such huge sums and generates independent wealth for its owners once it becomes an asset.
It belittles art itself, as a plaything or an alternative to real work.
The number is probably higher for the elite, most renowned artists, and it might well benefit society to ensure a portion of the best can live of it, but in many places that is already hard enough that a substantial portion of the ability of even elite artists to live off their art often comes down to government funding and grants, followed by patronage that is more about status than ability to commercially exploit a work.
That's not to agree with the notion that real artists can't want money too, because I don't agree with that, but I also don't agree that most artists have made art for gain.
At least not as a primary motivator, as if gain was the main goal, it's usually a bad one (e.g. the average full time UK novelist earns below minimum wage from their writing)