That is a radical interpretation of the text.

Perhaps you should re-examine exactly how successfully your text is reflecting the message you actually want to convey, because it's coming off as a judgmental and dismissive sermon to the bourgeois to me. Given that (1) I went into a career in the Arts with no Plan B, and (2) have been moderately successful at doing so (at least according to my own standards), I should be an easy target. Yet you're not winning me over.

we're talking about the particular problems of being an artist in a culture and economy that doesn't value the pursuit of art enough to support the artists.

OK, so you're specifically talking about the life and choices of someone who wants to do art, and is not interested in doing something other than art. I get that, and I do think that a successful, full-time artistic career -- making enough money from your art to live on -- quite often requires the kind of risk-taking and focus that we were talking about earlier.

But the point that other people are making is that there are numerous other ways for someone who loves their art to lead a happy life that includes, but may not depend on, artistic pursuits. Those paths can be fulfilling and meaningful, both artistically and personally, and it would not be wrong to *also* call them successful.

Plan B is the second plan for a reason - because it is less desirable.

Or maybe you take a job that you thought would be Plan B but actually turns out to be really interesting, and ten years go by, and you find that you've gotten really drawn into this whole other world that you really enjoy. I'd argue that's not really Plan B anymore. And while you can say that you might have been even happier or more successful sticking with your comic-drawing or your oboe-playing, that's going to be a pretty hard argument to support.

But you do not get to impose your art-over-everything values on the rest of us.

The only thing I was talking about was the best way to become a full time artist.

My entire stance is based on the presumption that IF you want to be a full time artist THEN you'd be better off living with risk.

Because, as Steph says above, claiming living as a professional artist is better in some sort of absolute way is denigrating the majority of the world who don't have the time/opportunity/desire to do that.

IF you want to become a fulltime artist THEN it is Better to make a living at it.

See, it's not a radical stance or nor an indictment of anybody who prefers (for whatever reason) to do their art part-time.

My question is this: if you want to be a creative artist of some kind, and you want to get paid for it, does that mean you can't want anything else?

Because if you have children, or even a dog, living on the edge to throw yourself into your work full-time may help you be more successful at the work, but it's not going to feed your kids or get your dog to the vet. And as important as writing is to me, being a mom and having a relationship with my husband is equally important.

So are a lot of things that help me write better, like reading other books and taking classes or going to readings, even having a laptop and a stable internet connection. All of those things cost money.

Also, if I may parse this:

I think it's a mistake to privilege a paying career as an artist/creative person as Better.

Yeah, I have no problem privileging that as Better.

It is very clear that I am referring to Consuela's "a paying career."

There is nothing in anything I wrote saying that it made you a better person or even a better artist.

My question is this: if you want to be a creative artist of some kind, and you want to get paid for it, does that mean you can't want anything else?

I don't think it is an either/or question. I think you have to balance those other things against your artistic career. Because the more responsibilities you take on, the less time you have for your work.

I think craving security is inimical to creating, but it's not antithetical. The more you value security the less freedom you have to create. Because security is an investment of energy and time.

As I noted (even before Jilli's comment to the same effect) some people work better from a stable place. So the balance point is different for different people. But I think that security always costs something on the artistic side.

It is very clear that I am referring to Consuela's "a paying career."

No, it wasn't. And going by the replies to it, I'm not the only person who it was unclear to.

No, it wasn't.

Okay, look at my text and tell me what you read.

But I think that security always costs something on the artistic side.

In my opinion, no, it doesn't. Also, if you're asking other people to provide you with security while you give your all to your art, then don't be disingenuous about it. Acknowledge that someone is covering the day-to-day basics.

Okay, look at my text and tell me what you read.

If I were diagramming this text for my 6th grade English teacher, your "that" would refer back to Suela's entire phrase "a paying career as an artist/creative person," which if we drop that into your sentence, turns it into:

"Yeah, I have no problem privileging a paying career as an artist/creative person as Better."

The flip side of which is that a paying career as a non-creative person is Worse.