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.

Billytea says it well. I don't recall anyone saying there wasn't precedent, I read it more as not real responsible to tell everyone to fuck plan b. Not only will very few artists make it big, but not for nothing, everyone who thinks they need to follow their muse doesn't have the talent. Please see audition shows on reality tv. If someone has a passion for an art, they will find a way to pursue it. I think it's ridiculous to think everyone should be encouraged to follow a creative dream for their whole life, but then again no one can force friends or family to get weighed down supporting someone so they must be fine with it.

We have actually run out of bed pads and are down on towels too.

I have just begun to read Winter's Bones. Holy hell! It's wonderful!

Ugh Kat, I've been there. Running the washing machine and hoping I can scrounge up enough blankets for the night. Poor kiddo.

Sad story of the day: After this weekend's shoe discussion, I decided to wear shoes I don't usually wear all this week, but that only lasted two days, because now I have huge blisters on both feet.

Very sad story, Perkins. I have just caught myself perusing the Fluevog site.

That's true also. However, it is my take that these cultural contributions are more valuable eventually than the market deems them.

I'd say that on that standard, the odds fall even further. In any case, this seems orthogonal to the original point, concerning whether a Plan B should be, erm, fucked. Or not.

(I personally agree about art's value, and would be very happy to see more public spending, grants, patronage etc. Quite obviously, that would render some of this particular debate moot, for some people at least. This not being the world in which we live, though, my preferences in this space don't resolve anything.)

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.

That's not art stealing back from capitalism, that's Faulkner being a Tino to individual people.

Issues of intellectual property can be pretty fascinating (a friend of mine from uni is now an expert in same, teaching at a uni in Chicago); but once again, this is all not particularly relevant to the issue of whether individuals should sacrifice personal planning and risk management to their muse.