I look at the question of money and art at two levels:
1. As an individual, what is the right mindset to have about my creativity? At this level, I agree with you. Looking at the economic trends, the only sane way to create and feel good about it is to do it in my free time, focus on the intrinsic reward and have some other job that pays the bills. I'm very fortunate in that my other job takes good care of me.
But there is another level I think about a lot:
2. At the cultural level, is it good for a society if people can only make art in their leisure time? I consider art to be (among other things) the mechanism by which we define, share, and propagate our culture. Our artworks teach each generation what we value and how we think one should live. They show us what it means to be human.
If that art can only be produced by people wealthy enough to have sufficient spare time (books, poetry, and painting) or giant corporations (film, TV), then you place complete control over your culture in the hands of the rich. Do you remember in the 80s and 90s when it seemed like almost every movie had an anti-corporate angle to it? Did you notice that they all stopped doing that? What should we expect when huge corporations are producing almost every film we see.
Should we be surprised to see that our society is failing to solve inequality when most books are written by the wealthy, about the wealthy, for the wealthy? How are those at the top supposed to understand and care for those at the bottom when those at the bottom don't even have the time to share their stories with them?
I think a just society needs art-makers to be able to focus on their art without worrying about money because it's the only way to ensure that everyone at every economic level gets to participate in defining our culture.
1. As an individual, what is the right mindset to have about my creativity? At this level, I agree with you. Looking at the economic trends, the only sane way to create and feel good about it is to do it in my free time, focus on the intrinsic reward and have some other job that pays the bills. I'm very fortunate in that my other job takes good care of me.
But there is another level I think about a lot:
2. At the cultural level, is it good for a society if people can only make art in their leisure time? I consider art to be (among other things) the mechanism by which we define, share, and propagate our culture. Our artworks teach each generation what we value and how we think one should live. They show us what it means to be human.
If that art can only be produced by people wealthy enough to have sufficient spare time (books, poetry, and painting) or giant corporations (film, TV), then you place complete control over your culture in the hands of the rich. Do you remember in the 80s and 90s when it seemed like almost every movie had an anti-corporate angle to it? Did you notice that they all stopped doing that? What should we expect when huge corporations are producing almost every film we see.
Should we be surprised to see that our society is failing to solve inequality when most books are written by the wealthy, about the wealthy, for the wealthy? How are those at the top supposed to understand and care for those at the bottom when those at the bottom don't even have the time to share their stories with them?
I think a just society needs art-makers to be able to focus on their art without worrying about money because it's the only way to ensure that everyone at every economic level gets to participate in defining our culture.