The path of an artist has developed a stereotype for years that the working artist is a “starving artist”.

But what defines a starving artist?

When I asked around the response was the same: A starving artist is someone who gives up the daily 9 to 5 grind and commits solely to their art. It’s an artist who goes on a whim to some foreign land and finds inspiration to create a ton of art only to come back to New York and sell it like gold. But what if you have a family to support or bills to pay and the thought of just relying on your artwork isn’t in the plan right now?

What if you don’t want to go on a whim and live off the land because you don’t want to be broke?

A professor once told me that if you are looking to become wildly famous, admired, adored and make tons of money…then art is NOT the place for you. An artist’s path is one of constant rejection, tons of trial and error and/or lack of money. Which is when the 9 to 5 job comes into play: this new theory of working a steady job to not only fund your art but take away the constant worry of daily income.

This plan sounds like a big relief for most artists who are just starting out. But if we stick to our day jobs and split our time in half, does that make us phonies? Are we not considered REAL artists if we do not commit 100% of our time to art?

When it comes to working an everyday job to make money for your work, are we considered SMART artists or FAKE artists? Do we really have to run free and live off the land in order to make extraordinary work?

What do YOU think?

Please let me comment below and let me know what defines an artist in your perspective.

Til next time,