There's nothing noble or virtuous or edgy or cool about being a starving artist.

Starving sucks.

Plain and simple.

You know that stubborn myth, the myth of the starving artist, that threadbare, but exuberant poet who has to choose between ink and food,

it's not just false, that is toxic.

And notions like this, they drain our energy and they either get us chasing dollars for all the wrong reasons,

or they encourage others to take advantage of us by undervaluing

our work. And this is the topic of today's micro show. The textbooks and the Hollywood biopics,

usually they gloss over everyday financial dealings of the great artists. Right? As a kid,

you never heard about Michelangelo haggling with the great artists, right? As a kid, you never heard about

Michelangelo haggling with the Vatican over, you know, pricey paint for the Sistine Chapel

ceiling or more recently, Catherine Bigelow fighting for huge budgets. No one tells you that

Ansel Adams wasn't too proud to accept 25 cents. That's right. Ansel Adams

accepted 25 cents for allowing his photos to be printed on restaurant menus. Nor did you hear

about the fact that his decision to do that didn't wreck his entire career.

We've got all kinds of new evidence from a book called Real Artists Don't Starve. A friend of mine, Jeff, talked about some of these artists were crazy wealthy.

And yet you didn't really hear about that.

The myth is that they starved. The myth is that they starved.

The myth is that they lived in the dirt.

Well, at the end of the day, it's no wonder that our feelings about the intersection of money

and creativity and art that they're complex, right?

And it doesn't matter whether you just want to create a boost in your life or you're trying

...