Originally posted by StTito
As an artist given the option between these two scenarios what would you pick?
1- You could create one piece of great work at a young age that would be wildly popular and give you enough money to live high on the hog for the rest of your life... but you would never create anything of artistic or popular value for the rest of that wealthy life.
OR
2- Be an ...[text shortened]... ted AND continuing to create these progressively better pieces till the day you die.
Discuss...
My first reaction is #2. However...
1- You could create one piece of great work at a young age that would be wildly popular and give you enough money to live high on the hog for the rest of your life... but you would never create anything of artistic or popular value for the rest of that wealthy life.
It seems that if you created one great piece, you must have some talent. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that nothing you created after that could have any artistic value. You could still create, improve and enjoy your art (even if nobody else did) and be financially comfortable and free to explore your medium. Also, it's entirely possible that because of that one piece you created early on, you had an influence on the art of others. And, since you created something of artistic value, there is the possibility that future generations may look back on your subsequent works and gain new appreciation for them. Finally, since your early work gave you financial independence, you could be more experimental in your later works. Even if none of these experimental pieces have any commercial value, they could be significantly more rewarding on a personal level.
Having created something great in the past, you'll always know that you have that spark inside you, and maintain hope that it comes out again.
2- Be an artist who is short on money but knows in his/her heart that each artistic endeavor is better than the last, even if it is not popularly accepted AND continuing to create these progressively better pieces till the day you die.
Personally, I'd like some recognition for my work. It doesn't have to be some kind of widespread, mainstream popularity, but I'd find it very frustrating if nobody liked my work. After a while, I think most people would begin to question their talent.
It's not about large sums of money or popularity. Given the choice, I'm sure most of us would choose Van Gogh's legacy over Thomas Kinkade's wealth and fame.
As an artist, I think you'd hope to churn out at least one "masterpiece"--one piece that represents (for you, anyway) the culmination of your talents and efforts. For some, that might be enough. That's not to say that you'd stop creating after that, but at least you could die knowing you'd left your mark--shown the world, even for one brief moment, everything that's inside you.