The artist, old and impoverished, trembles with rage when writing.

Author of more masterpieces than anyone could remember, the immortal Michelangelo is disappointed about his life. And he writes one of the most famous and widespread lines we have from him:

"My art has left me poor, old and working at the service of others."

Michelangelo used to live frugally, to dress humbly and hardly had any material possessions. He was obviously poor, in a world of excess and waste.

And that's how we remember him. A hungry and misunderstood genius. A sacrifice of his time. A martyr of art.

But, it turns out, the grand master was not telling the truth.

From poor artist to stingy artist

Let's skip over four hundred years and land in 2004. We are in a small office inside a bank vault (because something like that exists). A thin man with eyes that scream to have more knowledge that most of us about, well, everything, is absorbed analyzing some documents.

You know, when Dr. Rab Hathfield, art professor at the University of Syracuse, made one of the biggest discoveries of his career, he was really looking for something else.

This is how it usually happens. Like when John Pemberton invented Coca-Cola because he had a headache.

Seriously, he did.

The fact is that Mr. Hathfield was reviewing some several-centuries old documents in the Bank of Florence: Records of payments received by Michelangelo for painting the Sistine Chapel (Again, I swear this is serious).

Why were they still there? Well, because, as everyone knows, banks do not forget. They do not forgive. And they devour your innocence, your dreams and your soul, but that is something we will talk about another time.

What did the good teacher expect to find? Something very concrete: Evidence to draw a relatively accurate timeline about when each section of the magnificent chapel was painted. But what he actually found was something else. A fact that would occupy the headlines of his time, if at that time there had been gossip magazines.

Michelangelo was not poor.

In fact, he was not even rich.

The man was literally filthy rich.

His personal fortune amounted the modern equivalent of 47 million dollars. Which makes him, as far as we known, the richest artist of the Renaissance.

A harmful myth

Michelangelo was not poor. He was not a slave working at the service of others, as he bitterly described. He was a millionaire who enjoyed complaining about how badly the universe treated him and how he sacrificed himself for what he loved.

Now, such revelation does not take away a hint of his genius. But the master was not a hungry genius. He was a genius who liked to pretend he was hungry. Why? Well, who knows? Maybe that gave him more likes in his social networks. Or made him 20% cooler.

Although this discovery did not attract too much attention, it actually changes everything. Changes the rules about what it means to be an artist and what we can expect from art itself.

Why?

Because it has to do with one of the most harmful and widespread clichés that exists today. One that molds the way in which the human being creates, and the way his creative activity is perceived by others.

I'm talking about the myth of the starving artist.

Who wants to be a starving artist?

A starving artist is a stereotype that identifies an artist who basically decides to suffer for his art.

Not suffering in the sense of spending long hours working on that masterful painting. Rather, suffering in the sense of "I am a human sacrifice. Misunderstood, miserable and depressed, but I do it with pleasure because, you know, MI ARTE."

That is, the artist must starve for his art, or he is not an artist. And any of them who pretends to live from what they do (Eating like a human being, dressing decently, not being cold, putting a roof without leaks over his head and properly provide for his family.) is not a real artist.

Pretending to earn money with such artistic gift is the mark of sinners. Whoever dares to do it is a miserable sold-out to the system. A traitor to humanity. A blasphemer against ART. A false, a hypocrite, a mediocre. Scares babies, has stinky feet and eats kittens.

Because, according to the stereotype, the artist is this quasi-divine and at the same time damned being that carries with the responsibility of nurturing the spirit of humanity with his talent, without expecting anything in return. He is a martyr. He has to give us his best in exchange for our admiration and our compassion for how much he suffers.

But not our money, of course.

Who sells his art is already seen with suspicious eyes. And whoever sells it dearly, is not even an artist. He is a vile merchant who profits from the most precious thing we have as human beings.

Therefore, artist, draw this idea that I have in my head. Write me this novel that I've been imagining for years. Compose this song from which I came up with the title. And I will give you my eternal gratitude. And you will even gain "popularity" with me, you lucky guy!

The stereotype that must die

Let's clarify something. I am an artist. Recognizing it must have been one of the most difficult things I've done. But I did it, darn it, because that is the first step I had to take in order to be able to live from my art.

The second thing is this: To accept that I deserve to be given money for the art I produce.

It sounds almost blasphemous, right? This is how we have been educated. It is an idea so deeply put in our minds that the mere mention of the opposite produces rejection.

But it is the truth.

Tell me, what really passionate and professional person does not consider his work at least a bit artistic? Does a doctor not see medicine as an art? How about an architect? A chef? A box fighter? A teacher?

Who could say that they do not deserve money for the work they do?

Why should a painter, a composer, a musician, a writer or an actor be treated differently? Why should their work always be free, public and subject to the vagaries of the whole world?

Raising artists to this absurd level of compulsory sacrifice is absurd. It attempts against human dignity, instead of exalting it. You're saying that a writer does not deserve to charge for that short story he just created, or a painter does not deserve to make good money from that portrait he just produced.

Your work should be free. It must be publicly displayed and used by anyone without any restriction. And you must sacrifice yourself for the rest. Don’t you see you are an artist? Don’t you see that art is free, patrimony and property of all?

Nonsense.

The incomplete formula

Money perverts art. So they say.

Really?

Let me explain it to you in another way. We are going to see the artistic work as a formula.

Your first step is: Create art.

Who stays at this stage only wants to create something for others to admire it. He is the writer who uploads all of his work to the internet without expecting anything. What matters to him is that everyone congratulates him. He is excited about it. That feeds his ego.

There's nothing wrong with that. But if you stay in that step, you should not expect to ever make money with it. You may dedicate yourself to something else, and continue giving away your work to the public. Perfect. Your art is for everyone, as long as the world accepts it.

This is where many people expect the artist to stay. They want us to create art for the sake of art itself. Period.

Now, let's add something else:

Create art. Earn money.

And Rome burns. OHMYGODSOMEBODYPLEASETHINKABOUTTHECHILDREN! The artist who earns money with his art immediately is viewed with suspicion. It is so typical that some potential customers are reluctant to pay a cartoonist what they consider too much for "just making a little drawing".

But the thing gets worse. The thing is that many cartoonists believe it too.

They believe that they should not earn a good amount of money from drawing. That, some way, they do not deserve it. And the writers too. And the composers too. The world is so darn curious because it praises their gift but, at the same time, it disparages their work. And it convinces them that this is the right thing to do.

And it goes on. Whoever artist that, somehow, manages to reach a higher level and makes serious money with his art, is immediately subject to a stigma: The traitor. The petty merchant. The false artist. The sold-out to the system.

And, let’s concede, arguments are actually there. Do you remember a movie that seems to be made for the sole purpose of making money out of it? Are they not flat, generic and insipid?

Such is the mark of the artist who works only for the check.

But, you know, this is the thing:

The formula is incomplete.

Pay attention, because this when it gets really cool:

Create art. Earn money. Create more art.

And here is the beauty.

Of art and money

If you decide to create art just for the sake of art, which means being in the first step, good for you.

Many of us started like that. And some decide to stay there. People for whom their art is a hobby they enjoy sharing with others, without expecting anything in return. Their means of maintenance are others, and it is praiseworthy.

There are also people who create art only for themselves. As a way to fight stress or just to create something nice that gives them personal satisfaction. Art that never leaves their rooms. If it works for them, it is also perfect.

But, what if you want to create art with the explicit and unique aim of making money out of it?

Then you are in the second stage. And we do have a problem.

Is it that money actually perverts art?

No sir. What perverts art is the action of creating it only to make money out of it.

Let's be clear here. There is nothing wrong with making money with the art you create. But if you create art just to earn money, then your art suffers. Inevitably.

Why? Because here, specially here, passion is needed. And it is needed a lot.

For example: When you are writing a novel about a topic that does not attract you at all, but which you chose because that is where "the money is", then the result will never be as good as it could.

It is possible that your work is technically perfect, of course. That it passes all the rigorous revisions and that you style is very adequate. But there will always be something that does not work so well. As if that story was too generic or just "Meh, ok."

And that happens all the time. Creating art just to make money out of it does not work in the long term.

What should we do, then?

Complete the cycle: Create art to earn money to create more art.

Do you understand? Your ultimate goal in creating art is to create more art. But please, understand that you do not live in a vacuum. You are not a superman or a human sacrifice or anything like that. You are a person who needs to eat and who deserves to live with dignity by doing what you like. Just like everyone else. And you can also give the world something very special. Something that nobody else can.

Money is a means, it is not an end. It is an intermediate step that you have to go through in order to continue creating.

It is also a basic recognition of your dignity as an artist and as a productive person. You deserve to make money with that book, that painting, that song and that sculpture. You deserve it. And you better convince yourself about it.

The warrior artist

We went from the starving artist to the stingy artist.

But you know? It is not the end of the road. I think there is one more step.

The artist who rebels. The artist who has to fight for being an artist. Fight against the client who does not want to rightfully pay him for his work. Fight against the society that considers that he should not charge for what he does. Fight against himself to convince himself that he deserves to make money out of that drawing, that story or that song.

And, darn it, who also must fight sometimes against other artists who call him a sold-out, a hypocrite and a traitor for pretending to live from it. Really living. To compete, to strive, to be prosperous. Doing it with what he knows and what he loves.

He is a warrior artist. I am a warrior artist.

I want to live from my art. Not barely living, not surviving. I don’t want to decide between doing what I love and putting food on my family's table. I do not fear to compete with others, nor do I shy away from committing myself to someone other than my ego.

I am humble to recognize that I must find a common ground with whoever honors me with his time and perhaps honors me with his money. I feel grateful to him, and I hope to give him what he expects from me, the best way I can. Because I owe it to him.

I declare myself in rebellion. Against everything that challenges what I do. The society, the system, the abusive. The cliché of the starving artist.

I am not a starving artist. I do not want to be one. I do not deserve to be one.

And neither do you.

I am a warrior writer. A warrior artist.

And I would feel honored, if you decide to fight by my side.

The inspiration for this post came from the book "Real Artists don't Starve", by Jeff Goins. I just can't recommend it enough.

Images credits: stevepb, yatheesh, Pixapopz, jarmoluk, Harvey287, amurca, anassar. Pixabay.

If you loved it, please, upvote it and share it. You would honor me if you'd follow me here: @flashfiction. Thank you!