a plan b does not have to be a 40 hour a week job.

I have about 3 plans to get Matt out of the corporate world - based on how we like to live. Many of the people that I know that have decided to become full time artists have left the bay area.

I have another friend L - who would love to make music , so she has found a career ( art and music therapy ) that lets her reach people with her music and help people - plus earn money. What will she do - time will tell but her plan b keeps her closer to her dream than working at a grocery store.

Look, I've made a number of specific cites to artists who didn't have a Plan B and succeeded. You can argue about the merits of that approach, but you can't say it doesn't have precedent.

It's much harder to count the careers that were wrecked by people who were too careful, and unwilling to take risks. Because those careers never took flight.

And I'm also sure it was a source of tension in their marriage.

I would not be surprised.

So I'm going to bow out of this discussion, because I don't think I can continue it and be coherent or polite.

I am going to take this advice for my own and do the same.

I think actually this is an issue that has a lot of future ramifications. As more and more tasks are relegated to automation, they'll need to be more of an economy built around creative endeavors. I think society (perhaps especially American society) will need to value creativity more than "hard work" since software and machines will more and more replace work that doesn't require creativity.

I think society (perhaps especially American society) will need to value creativity more than "hard work" since software and machines will more and more replace work that doesn't require creativity.

For me it just goes back to my friend Gary's work with risk assessment and management. Creative careers are going to have a certain amount of failure built into them, including careers that are ultimately successful. You can piss away your assets by not risking enough just as much as you can by risking too much.

There's nothing inherently wrong with gambling the most when you have the least to lose (young, unmarried, no mortgage etc.)

How is it any more dangerous than taking any chance with your life?

From my perspective, there are two issues that make it more dangerous:

1. The examples that have been brought up have the common theme that the person's choice winds up falling on other people.

2. Odds are pretty minuscule of actually making it big in artistic endeavour. It's one thing, say, to make a college choice that you might estimate has a 50/50 chance of working out. It's quite another to gamble everything on a plan that might pay off for one person in a hundred. Hell, even that guy who sold everything he owned and put it on a roulette wheel in Vegas had the sense to pick Black instead of one number.

AFAIC, where (1) doesn't apply, knock yourself out. If Michael J. Fox is willing to sleep in his car, more power to him. The odds of him actually being Michael J. Fox are slim, but it doesn't burden anyone else that he wants to find out. (Unless he parks on their lawn. Don't do that, Michael J. Fox!) Plus, frankly, if you're a teenager or in your early twenties, you have plenty of time to decide on a plan B after all.

I will also note that I see a significant distinction between a person convinced of their own talent in circumstances where they have to give it their all or give it up, and a person who thinks that pursuing their muse means they should be reckless with their future, even if they don't have to. The former may be admirable, the latter just sounds pretentious.

Too many of those Great Talents With Passion For their Art have a significant other of Great and Transcending Patience behind them, keeping them and the children fed.

1. The examples that have been brought up have the common theme that the person's choice winds up falling on other people.

That's true. But artists are big fat parasites and I've got roughly a berjillion cites for those supported, often at great cost, by their families and friends to create work of lasting value. There would be no Van Gogh paintings without his brother Theo. The problem is that the long term value is not properly compensated over the short term.

2. Odds are pretty minuscule of actually making it big in artistic endeavour.

That's true also. However, it is my take that these cultural contributions are more valuable eventually than the market deems them. Frankly, this is a problem with capitalism not art.

Not to mention the artistic production which is basically given to the culture at large and often exploited in more commercial work. Art is by its nature a form of gift economy. (Not unlike Fandom in that way.) Capitalism exploits that - often unfairly. But that's the deal. If art steals back from capitalism (by, say, Faulkner's very poor customer service at his post office gig) then that's the way it goes.

I'm with msbelle. I'd love to kerfuffle, but not tonight. Also Steph, I have a secret message to you: you are a wonderful and elegant turner-away. Kudos!

Still watching Downton Abbey. On Episode 7. Fabulous.

Noah is asleep on the floor at my feet. The sheer frequency of puking he is experiencing is no fun.

300 posts people!!!

And poor Noah. Urpy kids needs their sleep.