Thank you for this story. I didn’t know anything about Michelangelo as an entrepreneur who opened doors to wealth for other artists. Before reading this, my understanding of artists and craftsmen of the Renaissance was that they constituted the first “middle class”. Finally, there was a “in between” extreme wealth and the abject poverty of all of the others.
Because of the skills they brought to the table in the ornate carvings and plastering, etc., in the building of the homes and palaces of the very wealthy, artisans were not only very well paid but also respected by their benefactors.
My personal experience with the phenomenon “starving artist” myth was my husband’s choice of career. He wanted to be a painter. But after graduating 4th in our class of 811, everyone, including his father, who held the first strings for paying for college thought he was wasting his brain by even wanting to pursue Art as a career.
Lance thus started college with the idea that he would pursue a degree in chemistry. He later became a school psychologist, earning two masters degrees in less time than it would have taken normal people to get one.
In his brilliant career in psychology, he brought his creativity to everything he did, developing several innovative approaches to his “day job” working with neurodivergent teens. He continued to paint, as he had time, but there were long periods when he simply didn’t have the time, as he pursued his many other interests at a level of proficiency in all that continues to astound me, his wife of 50 years as of next month.
When Lance retired a few years ago, he again took up painting. What is so remarkable now, though, is that, without anything close to the 10,000 hours of practice often (as wrongly as the “starving artist” idea) as necessary for true mastery of any skill, his paintings are at a level of excellence that is unbelievable.
During the pandemic, he taught himself Mayan. After the pandemic, he facilitated the production of a documentary film, Beyond the Ruins, about a Maya family’s struggle to preserve their culture in the Yucatan Peninsula.
Although I sometimes wonder what would’ve happened had Lance pursued his dream of becoming an artist as a career in the first place, it has given me great pleasure, as one whose career was in vocational rehabilitation counseling, to have witnessed Lance’s creativity woven throughout all of the many things he’s done to make a living.
This was really enlightening and intriguing. It is a shame that being creative has that stigma of starving attached to it. There is such a freedom and almost an act of resistance in doing what you love to do.
I was about to argue that it's harder to make a living as an artist than another field, but now that I think about it - I agree with you. Countless businesses fail, yet the cultural myth tells us entrepreneurship is the way to riches. People eke out barely livable wages doing all kinds of jobs they hate. Why not art? You have to be smart about it, but you have to be smart about anything to succeed.
I don't know where you got this nonsense about people thinking or teaching others that somehow the most well know, and famous Divine Michelangelo was poor artists. That is the biggest load a nonsense I think I've heard in a while. Look, if you are going to try to make this sales pitch of yours at least do your homework so you don't insult the audience. If you are going to invent these stories to sell your book, make sure they are actually true first. Not this nonsense about poor Michelangelo. Nobody ever though that about Michelangelo, except in your story.
That is false. For a long time, the world did not know how rich Michelangelo was, or that he was rich at all. This was a fact that was hidden until the early 2000s, for hundreds of years.
In regards to research, I spoke with Professor Rab Hatfield, who continued the work of an earlier historian and identified the previously unknown bank accounts belonging to Michelangelo which were held in other names and identities. I purchased a hard-to-find copy of his book, "The Wealth of Michelangelo," which in detail lists the $47 million in assets he owned when he died.
I contacted Dr. William E. Wallace, and he shared with me the reality that most Renaissance artists were merchants, working-class people—not aristocrats. Dr. Wallace is an internationally recognized authority on the life of Michelangelo, a living expert on the artist. He shares a lot about Michelangelo's unlikely success, and the reasons for it, in his book "Michelangelo: The Artist, The Man and His Times." When I spoke with him personally, he told me that Michelangelo changed the whole game for artists, making it possible for them to change their state in society.
I also read the work of Michelangelo himself, letters he wrote to family members and even patrons/clients, where he clearly writes and seems to want to indicate that he is a poor servant of others far more fortunate than he. He also hid his money.
When you tell me to do my homework, is that what you mean?
I wrote an entire book on the life of Michelangelo, his success as an artist, and what that means for creative professionals today. I spoke with dozens of experts, art historians, and artists. I've shared this message with thousands of people, and most are surprised to hear that Michelangelo was not only extremely rich but, at the time of his death, the richest artist who had ever lived.
If you are going to criticize someone for not doing sufficient research, please do your homework next time. ;)
Here are a couple links to the original stories that broke twenty or so years ago:
"That is false. For a long time, the world did not know how rich Michelangelo was, or that he was rich at all. This was a fact that was hidden until the early 2000s, for hundreds of years. "
That is absolute nonsense. He was known as Divine Michelangelo since he made David, with two biographers no less writing about him while he was still alive. Pope's Thumb, Sistine Chapel ceiling, dome of Sr.Peter's for crying out loud was his contribution. He was one of most wealthiest and know artists since he was apprentice. He was from wealthy family and deeply connected to Medici. To claim he was unknown artists when Giorgio Vasari wrote a book in his honor that is the basis of all art books that came after it. He is the most well known name in history of art, with possible Picasso being the title contender.
"I wrote an entire book on the life of Michelangelo, his success as an artist, and what that means for creative professionals today. I spoke with dozens of experts, art historians, and artists. I've shared this message with thousands of people, and most are surprised to hear that Michelangelo was not only extremely rich but, at the time of his death, the richest artist who had ever lived."
With all do respect. You are no historian or artists. You are marketing guy. That is your sales pitch. So you used the story the way it fits your sales pitch.
"That money was not some late-in-life windfall. Professor Hatfield's research shows that for most of Michelangelo's nearly 89 years, he was marginally, moderately or massively rich. But he often refused to show it, and often declined to share it." from one of your articles. Yeah, its called piety. Piety, religious virtue. Something you certainly do not promote.
"When Michelangelo closed the two accounts, the professor said, he passed part of his savings to a male lover, the banker Pierfrancesco Borgherini."
No he didn't have a lover. It was not that kind of relationship. But I don't expect anything less of today s writers, because its popular to push for gay narrative. He, Michelangelo was almost certainly homosexual and almost certainly had platonic relationships not one based on sodomy, and even that was deeply regraded by him as the Last Judgment fresco demonstrates. Why? Because he was neither modern day homosexual nor marketing sales guy, he was Christian when that actually meant something. Naturally, modern academics will try to spin that as much as modern marketers.
Thank you for this story. I didn’t know anything about Michelangelo as an entrepreneur who opened doors to wealth for other artists. Before reading this, my understanding of artists and craftsmen of the Renaissance was that they constituted the first “middle class”. Finally, there was a “in between” extreme wealth and the abject poverty of all of the others.
Because of the skills they brought to the table in the ornate carvings and plastering, etc., in the building of the homes and palaces of the very wealthy, artisans were not only very well paid but also respected by their benefactors.
My personal experience with the phenomenon “starving artist” myth was my husband’s choice of career. He wanted to be a painter. But after graduating 4th in our class of 811, everyone, including his father, who held the first strings for paying for college thought he was wasting his brain by even wanting to pursue Art as a career.
Lance thus started college with the idea that he would pursue a degree in chemistry. He later became a school psychologist, earning two masters degrees in less time than it would have taken normal people to get one.
In his brilliant career in psychology, he brought his creativity to everything he did, developing several innovative approaches to his “day job” working with neurodivergent teens. He continued to paint, as he had time, but there were long periods when he simply didn’t have the time, as he pursued his many other interests at a level of proficiency in all that continues to astound me, his wife of 50 years as of next month.
When Lance retired a few years ago, he again took up painting. What is so remarkable now, though, is that, without anything close to the 10,000 hours of practice often (as wrongly as the “starving artist” idea) as necessary for true mastery of any skill, his paintings are at a level of excellence that is unbelievable.
During the pandemic, he taught himself Mayan. After the pandemic, he facilitated the production of a documentary film, Beyond the Ruins, about a Maya family’s struggle to preserve their culture in the Yucatan Peninsula.
Although I sometimes wonder what would’ve happened had Lance pursued his dream of becoming an artist as a career in the first place, it has given me great pleasure, as one whose career was in vocational rehabilitation counseling, to have witnessed Lance’s creativity woven throughout all of the many things he’s done to make a living.
This was really enlightening and intriguing. It is a shame that being creative has that stigma of starving attached to it. There is such a freedom and almost an act of resistance in doing what you love to do.
I'm glad you liked it.
Yes indeed!
Loved this excerpt. I’ve ordered to paperback from my local bookstore as kindle isn’t an option where I am :)
Ah, bummer. Sorry about that. Thanks for the support!
Nah, no need to be sorry. Gives me a chance to support the bookstore too :) double yay!
Indeed. Love a good local bookstore.
What an interesting post.
PS Typo in your title “you don’t have a starve”
Nice catch. Don't know how I missed this.
It happens!
I was about to argue that it's harder to make a living as an artist than another field, but now that I think about it - I agree with you. Countless businesses fail, yet the cultural myth tells us entrepreneurship is the way to riches. People eke out barely livable wages doing all kinds of jobs they hate. Why not art? You have to be smart about it, but you have to be smart about anything to succeed.
:)
Thanks for this. Fantastic. I write. I would love to succeed.
I don't know where you got this nonsense about people thinking or teaching others that somehow the most well know, and famous Divine Michelangelo was poor artists. That is the biggest load a nonsense I think I've heard in a while. Look, if you are going to try to make this sales pitch of yours at least do your homework so you don't insult the audience. If you are going to invent these stories to sell your book, make sure they are actually true first. Not this nonsense about poor Michelangelo. Nobody ever though that about Michelangelo, except in your story.
That is false. For a long time, the world did not know how rich Michelangelo was, or that he was rich at all. This was a fact that was hidden until the early 2000s, for hundreds of years.
In regards to research, I spoke with Professor Rab Hatfield, who continued the work of an earlier historian and identified the previously unknown bank accounts belonging to Michelangelo which were held in other names and identities. I purchased a hard-to-find copy of his book, "The Wealth of Michelangelo," which in detail lists the $47 million in assets he owned when he died.
I contacted Dr. William E. Wallace, and he shared with me the reality that most Renaissance artists were merchants, working-class people—not aristocrats. Dr. Wallace is an internationally recognized authority on the life of Michelangelo, a living expert on the artist. He shares a lot about Michelangelo's unlikely success, and the reasons for it, in his book "Michelangelo: The Artist, The Man and His Times." When I spoke with him personally, he told me that Michelangelo changed the whole game for artists, making it possible for them to change their state in society.
I also read the work of Michelangelo himself, letters he wrote to family members and even patrons/clients, where he clearly writes and seems to want to indicate that he is a poor servant of others far more fortunate than he. He also hid his money.
When you tell me to do my homework, is that what you mean?
I wrote an entire book on the life of Michelangelo, his success as an artist, and what that means for creative professionals today. I spoke with dozens of experts, art historians, and artists. I've shared this message with thousands of people, and most are surprised to hear that Michelangelo was not only extremely rich but, at the time of his death, the richest artist who had ever lived.
If you are going to criticize someone for not doing sufficient research, please do your homework next time. ;)
Here are a couple links to the original stories that broke twenty or so years ago:
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/21/world/florence-journal-the-warts-on-michelangelo-the-man-was-a-miser.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/30/artsandhumanities.arts
"That is false. For a long time, the world did not know how rich Michelangelo was, or that he was rich at all. This was a fact that was hidden until the early 2000s, for hundreds of years. "
That is absolute nonsense. He was known as Divine Michelangelo since he made David, with two biographers no less writing about him while he was still alive. Pope's Thumb, Sistine Chapel ceiling, dome of Sr.Peter's for crying out loud was his contribution. He was one of most wealthiest and know artists since he was apprentice. He was from wealthy family and deeply connected to Medici. To claim he was unknown artists when Giorgio Vasari wrote a book in his honor that is the basis of all art books that came after it. He is the most well known name in history of art, with possible Picasso being the title contender.
"I wrote an entire book on the life of Michelangelo, his success as an artist, and what that means for creative professionals today. I spoke with dozens of experts, art historians, and artists. I've shared this message with thousands of people, and most are surprised to hear that Michelangelo was not only extremely rich but, at the time of his death, the richest artist who had ever lived."
With all do respect. You are no historian or artists. You are marketing guy. That is your sales pitch. So you used the story the way it fits your sales pitch.
"That money was not some late-in-life windfall. Professor Hatfield's research shows that for most of Michelangelo's nearly 89 years, he was marginally, moderately or massively rich. But he often refused to show it, and often declined to share it." from one of your articles. Yeah, its called piety. Piety, religious virtue. Something you certainly do not promote.
"When Michelangelo closed the two accounts, the professor said, he passed part of his savings to a male lover, the banker Pierfrancesco Borgherini."
No he didn't have a lover. It was not that kind of relationship. But I don't expect anything less of today s writers, because its popular to push for gay narrative. He, Michelangelo was almost certainly homosexual and almost certainly had platonic relationships not one based on sodomy, and even that was deeply regraded by him as the Last Judgment fresco demonstrates. Why? Because he was neither modern day homosexual nor marketing sales guy, he was Christian when that actually meant something. Naturally, modern academics will try to spin that as much as modern marketers.