Rich Artists = Bad Art?
Vincent struggled for his art, so did Modigliani, but artists like Salvador Dali, Andy Warhol, and more recently Damien Hirst could afford to pay an army of assistants to work for them.
Jonathan Jones of the Gurdian has asked if being rich makes you a bad artist? It's an interesting question, with arguments for and against being rich. Dali is a good example of great wealth making bad art (his later works are really bad), but Monet, Picasso, and Rubens kept doing good work even though they could afford to buy the landscapes they painted!
So it's probably more about the desire to keep pushing yourself, rather than getting too comfortable with your life or your work.
The British artist Damien Hirst is said to have an estimated 100 million pounds
at the age of 40, but he seems to be getting too comfortable
and has started repeating himself
Do rich artists make bad art?
"The most brilliant concealer
of wealth was Picasso. From his 30s onwards, the modern master could afford the best studios and houses. But when we look at his painting of his studio on his Cannes estate we don't think of him as rich in the same vulgar way as Dalí. This is because Picasso lived for work, and left it to his heirs to indulge the excesses and self-hatreds of the rich." Guardian
>> Being an Artist
, Famous Artists
, Damien Hirst
, Pablo Picasso