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.

points at what Jessica said.

Also, the entire thrust of your position has been that prioritizing creativity over security is not only a valid choice, but the valid choice, and that creative people who don't do that aren't as focused on their creativity as the people who do make that choice.

I think you have to balance those other things against your artistic career.

I don't know if I'm the only one, but this sounds -- to me -- like an artistic career should be the ultimate goal. That you'll want to measure everything else you want to do or achieve against how it will affect your art.

I guess because we're not discussing other career aspirations, that sounds -- to me -- like a creative career is more worthy than any other kinds of careers, which certainly can't be true.

I think it's just a tone thing, but it could also be that I had a really crappy day. I think goals of all kinds are great, unless it's destroying the world, and having more than one goal in your life (i.e. write books, have kids), you should do whatever you can to make *that* work, not just the artistic career.

I also think Consuela was right about being paid. You're saying being paid to do what you love is always better, but that's not always true.

I think what I'm really saying is there are no absolutes in this argument because, guess what, it involves human beings. Nothing works for everybody, and that's true of food, sex, exercise, faith, and entertainment. This is no different.

You're saying being paid to do what you love is always better, but that's not always true.

It's been known to ruin what you love, in fact. I love writing fiction. I write non-fiction for work, on deadlines. If I were to be paid to write fiction, on deadlines, I suspect I would rapidly grow to hate writing fiction, because part of what makes it fun is that there are no deadlines, and I'm free to fully indulge my writerly desires without worrying about marketability or anything else.

The point I was trying to make, David, and which I suspect you just glossed over, was that the language you were using implied a hierarchy in which the paying artist is superior, in some absolute and objective way, to the non-artist and the non-paying artist.

I'm glad you were not stating that, but I was hardly alone in my interpretation. Qualifiers can clutter up the text, but they can also be really useful for not pissing off your audience. Unless, of course, that was your intention: certainly we had a lively discussion here.

I had a science teacher in high school who was a Jazz Trombonist. He was really, really good and probably could have had a paying career. He played in local bands, and directed the Jazz Band and our musical pit band. One time I asked him why he didn't pursue a career as a musician, and he said that as soon as he started trying to make his living at it, it became a job, and he lost a lot of his passion for music. And he loved science, too, and teaching. So he felt he had a really perfect and fulfilling life and was a happier artist being non pro

If I were to be paid to write fiction, on deadlines, I suspect I would rapidly grow to hate writing fiction

Or you wind up writing something you're not proud of. Cold Kiss was a great experience for me, and meant a lot to me, while Glass Heart was something they told me to write. And honestly, I was done with those characters when Cold Kiss ended. So even though I think I did a serviceable job with Glass Heart, it's not something I feel really proud of me, and it certainly doesn't mean as much as me, leaving out the money I was paid to do it.

This sounds like the whole -- turn your passion into your career! or Only do work you are passionate about! career advice that pops on personal finance blogs occasionally.

Which totally ignores that 1) some people don't want their passion to be their career and 2) sometimes doing something else allows you to better explore your passion.

At the Association I worked for the CFO's passion was archaeology. He told me he originally was going to make a career out of it but then looked at the realities of what it would mean long term and decided he was also good with number so he went into finance.

He makes a great salary, he travels, has volunteered on digs, and has money to collect ancient coins and other stuff he likes.

Which totally ignores that 1) some people don't want their passion to be their career and 2) sometimes doing something else allows you to better explore your passion.

More importantly, to my mind, it ignores that there are jobs which need doing that don't ignite people's passions to an extent sufficient to see them done.

I recall seeing some recent research that found pursuing your dreams is actually pretty poor career advice. People don't really have a good picture of what a career will be like until they do it; and job satisfaction is less correlated with following your passion than it is with the conditions under which you work and the people with which you work. (Don't remember where I saw it though, so grain of salt.)