More creative: rich or poor people?

Does great art arise from struggle, or is it nurtured by opportunity?

Is art revolutionized from the bottom up, or is it greatly refined after it has become legitimate?

Are you more free to stretch the limits of art if finances are not an issue? Or are you more rigid because of your conservative upbringing?

The question: who is responsible for the great art (visual, musical, theatrical, etc.) in the world? Richer people or poorer people?

Or you could turn the question around: who is more likely to be rich–creative people or uncreative people?

I would argue that it’s not that rich people are creative but that creative people are (often) rich. Same correlation, but with cause and effect reversed.

I would submit that successful people (not necessarily rich people) are less creative than poor people. By the very definition of success ("degree or measure of succeeding; favorable or desired outcome; also: the attainment of wealth, favor, or eminence), it would follow that successful people have hit on something that works, and would probably be much less likely to try new, creative things. Since as a society we can only see far enough to equate success with wealth, I would say that rich people would be less creative than poorer people who haven’t found the route to the mother lode yet.

Ehhh, probably the opposite of what featherlou said. Though I admit, my initial reaction was that wealth and creativity are not directly, if even indiractly, related. Still see it that way, but I’m sure a case could be made that wealthy people are more creative.

why does so much, so called art, look like crap?

if rich people with no taste spend big bucks on junk then mediocre artists get promoted as great. it’s the $ value of the painting that proves it is GOOD. of course the insurance companies will agree.

if there is a uniform distribution of talent thru society, even tho many poor people won’t get to develop their talents there are so many ‘poor’ more of them should get thru. but still, who decides what’s GOOD.

Dal Timgar

I believe that great art springs from AND is nurtured by struggle. It is Struggle that brings growth, and Growth is a form of change, Change is the ideal atmosphere for creativity.

Revolutions in art and legitimazation is irrelivant. Artwork as in painting and sculptures is very dependent on society and thier current tastes and values. Famous dead artits work are perhaps not as enjoyed today asthetically as much as they are viewed as rare and expensive.

Too much freedom from finances could bring about distractions (especially in this age) and a need for money has been the cause for many of the greatests artists to complete thier works. Contentment breeds laziness… a very very poor atmosphere for creativity.

Every Great classical artist i have studied in school or on my own has shown that the poor, weary and perhaps a bit mad artist has created the “masterpieces”

Lemur: There is different ways of being creative, and many people have made vast fortunes being creative and inventive…but i do believe the emphisis was on ART…great art in particular…I dont think of Bill Gates (as an example) as an artist…

Personally i think of Inventiveness and Creativity as being similar but strikingly different.

I think that creativity is fairly well distibuted but that the poor need to use it more (to become richer and to stop needing it all that much).
Yeah, great art comes from struggle.

“Creativity comes from struggle” is a nice sound bite, but that does not make it true. Even if it is true, the assumption that material wealth precludes internal struggle is unwarranted.

Historically, the extremely wealthy (aristocratic nobility) have often been discouraged from artistic activities that were seen culturally as unfit for people of their “station”. Exactly where this line has been drawn has varied significantly from culture to culture. Likewise, the extremely poor have little opportunity to develop whatever creative inspiration they might harbor. The “starving artist” archetype is an exageration. Starving people tend to be more concerned with surviving than expressing their inner conflicts through an artistic medium.

Neither. Both. In terms of who’s “responsible”, the classical masters had rich patrons who comissioned a lot of the art hanging in museums today. Bach and Michaelangelo did a lot of their work for the church. I think great art is often more a product of internal struggle (a woman ripping your heart out, for instance) than financial struggle.

Everybody struggles when they’re just getting started on their own - it’s a condition of that time in people’s lives, not whether they’re artistic or not.

There’s also two different questions here, the one in the subject line and the one in the body of the post. In terms of who is more creative - rich or poor I don’t think creativity strictly equals artistic ability. Ted Turner and Bill Gates didn’t get rich by being unimaginative in their business dealings. There’s creativity in every field.

Personally, I believe that creativity, to a large extent, is something you’re born with. I don’t mean that you can’t learn to paint, write or play the piano, but an innate talent - that certain something - is going to make it a lot easier.

Of course, having money may well make it easier to refine those talents; if a person pays for the best piano teachers, then any natural talent they have will perhaps emerge much faster than if they teach themselves on a battered old keyboard.

I guess what I’m saying is that it doesn’t a make a blind bit of difference whether you are rich or poor when it comes to innate talent, but that money make it easier to ACCESS those talents.

Starving does not have to mean that you are lacking in food and water, nor is it necessarily true that the poor have little opportunity be inspired. It is more of a personal thing rather than a thing of wealth. There are many poor uncreative people in this world and always have been, same with the rich.

As for the Archetype being an exageration… well, it is just a certain type of artist many people hold on to, and being that there has always been more poor people than rich, it just stands to reason that it becomes the most popular.

Overall, my guess would be that there are more poor than rich artists (starting out anyhow). As i said before that lush and extravagant lifestyles breed a certain amount of laziness… Why write/draw/compose when one can be sunning out on the deck on the Yatch with Cindy Crawford?

Yes, its true that in the Past (the Medieval times perhaps) that only the rich could afford the paint/paper/canvas to express their art. Or in the case of writing, only some of the realitivly wealthy or lucky could read or write. So of course many of these “rich” people wrote/composed/painted.

In todays age, however… Lets just say that overall creativity is linked to inner struggle and perhaps as far as mental problems. These kinds of people desire escape, escape from the world that does not fit into thier ideal view of things and escape perhaps from even themselves. Those few in the past that needed escape found it in books, writing, Art. Today all they have to do is own a computer and that escape is opened up to them. Hundreds of thousands of games, books, Television, movies…ect to aid them in this escape more than entertainment. Those with lots of money have greater access to better forms of escape.
Now of course some few really dedicated will still complete something considered art. But compare that percent of “rich” artists to the poor ones that art is thier only form of escape that they can afford, and i bet it would be something along the lines of 1 rich artist for every 20-30 poor ones…
There are reasons there are archetypes and sterotypes… mostly because the greatest percent of (enter Archetype or Sterotype) is excatly that way.

i’m the OP responsible for this mess. i was ready to let this die, but there seems to be a minimum of interest…

i was really hoping that you all would be able to provide examples. great artists who grew up rich or dirt poor? maybe we could start with artists who completely changed their respective art forms: Coltrane, Picasso, Marlon Brando?

the genesis of all this: i was telling a friend that i think David Duchoveny is a horrible actor. my friend said, “but he went to Yale or some school like that” and i replied, “that’s even worse!”

i guess you can surmise my opinion on the subject. and after learning last night on Behind the Music that Huey Lewis went to Cornell , I’m even more convinced…:wink: