Should you Suffer for your Art?
The notion of suffering for your art has been around for a while. Although I find the definition differs greatly from person to person. Those who argue against it are often coming from the perspective that you shouldn’t be sacrificing a stable income or social life purely to satisfy an artistic pursuit. The counter argument is that we shouldn’t be sacrificing our artistic integrity simply to live a more comfortable life.
I think, as with anything, both arguments have quite a lot of merit to them — but perhaps we are looking at the notion of ‘suffering’ from the wrong perspective.
For me personally, the notion of having to suffer for your art is counterproductive. If your art causes you suffering then why is it worth pursuing? Surely the idea of following an artistic pursuit is that it satisfies a particular passion you cannot satiate elsewhere.
The use of the word ‘Suffering’, is perhaps an exaggeration of what the idea is actually trying to portray. Those arguing against it are often working professionals in an artistic field and can often see this notion of ‘suffering for your art’ as an attack against them personally. It is as if by the pure act of earning money from a creative pursuit you are ‘selling out’ or sacrificing your artistic integrity for the sake of financial or even social security.
This is something I encounter personally, as someone who makes money from mostly artistic talents — namely photography and video editing. My work is primarily client based and while I do get to stretch my creative legs and put my own style into the work I produce — I still have to make compromises based on what a client might ask for.
Naturally, this can make myself a little defensive when talking with other artists who purse their art solely as a passion. A pursuit that more often that not causes them to loose money or time with their friends and family. To them, I might be perceived as less of an artist. The very fact that I’m working for someone other than myself demands I give up my artistic integrity for the sake of delivering a marketable product.
Where this gets tricky is it creates this notion that the only pure or ‘real’ art is that which was created with no commercial prospects. It assumes that in order for something to be artistic, it must hold itself to the lofty ideals of the artist and cannot be compromised or tampered with. This falls short with me, because how could one consider a film like Blade Runner, or a TV series like Game of Thrones to not be considered ‘art’ — where in fact do we draw that line?
Both are ostensibly products created with the hope of reaching a large audience and earning money for their investors. Yet, at the same time, both feature themes and commentary which I would say have a great artistic merit. To say that their commercial origins exclude them from being artistic seems reductive.
On the other side of the coin however, suffering for one’s art has this romantic ideal behind it that can be quite appealing — especially to those just starting out. Lack of interference or input from outside sources makes the work truly ‘yours’ and if it means you sacrifice your time, finances and even relationships then that’s just what is necessary to maintain that artistic purity.
I think the issue here is, what is that purity actually worth? Does the mere act of suffering make the art any better?
Some of the most renowned artists did in fact, suffer during their life and saw little recognition for their artistic pursuits — Van Gogh being the poster boy for this particular argument. What I think is missing there however, is the notion that it was the art that caused them suffering, when really it was all the other factors in their life that caused them to suffer and not the art itself. Van Gogh painted because it was what he loved to do, I don’t think it would be a stretch to say that it was the primary cause of joy in his life. Sure he could have painted in the more traditional form of his contemporaries and arguably had more financial success or stability — he certainly had the skills, but that would have been at the expense of what seemed to truly make him happy.
What I find troubling however, is the notion that it was that suffering or lack of appreciation he endured that made his art worthwhile. In reality I would argue that it was simply that he had a passion and desire for what he created and that is what made his work so striking. Had his art style been appreciated at the time and sold to all the richest lords and ladies of Europe would it have had any less worth? Would we still respect and idolise his unique style today? I find it hard to believe that we wouldn’t.
I think it’s the idea of purity, or that it takes great suffering to create great art is what we all need to move beyond. Many artists are troubled or come from damaged backgrounds — but that’s not what made them great artists. Often, it’s that they were able to take that unique perspective and create works which expressed those ideas to a mass audience.
The idea that we must sacrifice either money, relationships, time or all of the above in order to create the best art is, to me, flawed. Likewise, if we create art only for ourselves what value does it have beyond us — does art truly have any value if it’s impact is limited to just the artist?
In my mind great art doesn’t require tragedy or misery from the artist, simply passion, dedication and intent. Your art may not earn you money or fame but that doesn’t necessarily equal suffering — finding balance between keeping true to yourself and keeping a roof over your head isn’t something unique to those following artistic pursuits, it’s something every single person must grapple with.
I don’t value money or fame, but I do value comfort and relationships. Thus I compromise my artistic vision at times to ensure that I can maintain a stable household and time with my friends and family. I haven’t got the balance right just yet (I often get lost in my work) but that’s what I’m working towards. It’s about what makes you as an individual happy. Long term Suffering should not be worn as a badge of honour, no matter the end result. It doesn’t make you or the art inherently better or more valuable.
We should be focused on creating because it makes us fulfilled, whether that be because it gives us comfort, money or whatever else. You can live a balanced life as an artist, but that balance is something you must define for yourself.
Originally Published 10/10/2019 on http://thevaliantknight.com
