Hacker News Reader

From Wikipedia:

He moved in November 1885 to Antwerp and rented a small room above a paint dealer's shop in the Rue des Images (Lange Beeldekensstraat).[69] He had little money and ate poorly, preferring to spend the money Theo sent on painting materials and models. Bread, coffee, and tobacco were his staple intake. In February 1886, he wrote to Theo saying that he could only remember eating six hot meals since May of the previous year. His teeth became loose and painful.[70] While in Antwerp, he applied himself to the study of color theory and spent time in museums, particularly studying the work of Peter Paul Rubens, gaining encouragement to broaden his palette to carmine, cobalt, and emerald green. He bought Japanese Ukiyo-e woodcuts in the docklands, and incorporated their style into the background of some of his paintings.[71] While in Antwerp, Van Gogh began to drink absinthe heavily.[72] He was treated by Dr. Amadeus Cavenaile, whose practice was near the docklands,[note 9] possibly for syphilis;[note 10] the treatment of alum irrigation and sitz baths was jotted down by Van Gogh in one of his notebooks.[73] Despite his rejection of academic teaching, he took the higher-level admission exams at the Academy of Fine Arts in Antwerp, and, in January 1886, matriculated in painting and drawing. For most of February, he was ill and run down by overwork, a poor diet, and excessive smoking.

Once Van Gogh broke through and gained some success, he shot himself after two years.

Yes, it's tough to make it on YouTube, but comparing yourself to famous painters isn't going to win any sympathy.

I thought this was a bizarre choice as well. The starving artist characterization is so common it's a trope at this point. But it really shows ignorance on the author's part to then select Van Gogh, who was particularly devoted to only his art and had a hardscrabble life even amongst the starving artist set.

Van Gogh shot himself because he was mentally ill, probably from bipolar disorder. The same thing that killed him (in a depressive phase) was likely responsible for his creativity (in a hypomanic phase).

> Bread, coffee, and tobacco were his staple intake

That would explain why he saw the world as swirly as he painted it later

I didn't detect entitlement in the article. It seemed to me that she was just describing the cold economics of being a vlogger.

Thousands of people see you on social media and many of them mistakenly assume you're making a decent living. They're so ignorant.

What's more, it's those opinionated viewers with their snarky comments about selling out who are entitled. They expect free, adless entertainment by selfless, sharing Internet personalities.

I'm grateful to this vlogger for having the courage to speak out on a painful and embarrassing topic. It's given me a lot to think about.

What a negative comment, to a detailed an insightful article! Just because she mentions Van Gogh, you pick on it, ignoring her later qualifiers.

Rather, this long post should be seen as a critique of the limitations of channels like YouTube. Such platforms are supposed to cater to long tail and empower them, but clearly they fall short.

Rather than criticizing the long tail artists for feeling entitled, it can also be seen as, that YouTube like platforms could solve this problem in a better way. Perhaps something like reddit tipping using bitcoin (I know this sounds a bit futuristic).

Clearly Ad based model are lacking and not paying enough.

Summary: If artists in the earlier centuries suffered and lived in misery, it does not mean that the current lot should also live the same way. Not in the age of Internet and cyber currencies.

edit: minor correction

The difference that the article is trying to highlight is the contrast between fame and economic security. Van Gogh wasn't famous while he was alive, so it's a straw-man argument. The modern Internet Star, however, is quite known.

Well, Mozart and lots of other artists were famous, and still either poor or at the mercy of rich patrons.

You are saying Mozart was poor?

"I also don't buy the implied sentiment that telling the truth about being more or less busto despite all the followers is seen as whining. Sure by some but you don't want those as followers. Transparency is usually valued very much in communities."

Rather ironic, considering the rest of the comment.

Agreed, I should make it clear that I do appreciate that the post itself was made. I don't think it's whining. I just think the view of "many followers" = "should at least make ends meet" is a bit optimistic.

But then again I have the same view that I criticize when it comes to OpenSSL not getting enough money (how can this possibly be it's so valuable for so many people) so maybe I just don't get youtubing for a living. It's the same argument...mmmm...food for thought :)

It's interesting that you brought up OpenSSL. I think open-source software and YouTubers both share the exact same age-old problem of monetization - how do we ensure content creators get compensated for a service whose value lies in its innovation, and whose marginal cost is essentially 0?

This problem used to be solved with patents and copyrights, but that tends to screw over the majority content consumers in favour of the minority content creators. The ad- and donation-supported model is a step in the right direction. I particularly like the Kickstarter-backed model that certain open-source projects (see Django Rest Framework) use, but I'm not sure if that's a viable long-term solution.

>how do we ensure content creators get compensated for a service whose value lies in its innovation, and whose marginal cost is essentially 0?

I think the first step is to break the current distribution models for content. Essentially content creators relinquish their rights over their content which includes the ability to monetize the content. The social networks make billions on content created by their users...my answer, the content creators who have established followers, start hosting/publishing their content on their own websites and only use the social networks to redirect traffic to their own websites they control and they can monetize.

>I'll sound pretty heartless but the post sounds entitled. There is no grantee of riches just because you're "famous".

I don't recognize any of these people. I think calling them famous is a stretch. Having impressive youtube numbers, well, isn't that impressive outside of youtube. I see millions of views on crap like cat videos or terrible comedy or whatever. If someone is getting regular high numbers that means he or she is competitive with a cat yawning video or someone doing tasteless race comedy (two things recently forwarded to me). I think these people need to realize that things are much more competitive outside their little worlds and they simply aren't talented enough to make it outside of their little echo chambers.

Also, a pet peeve of mine is the phrase "internet famous." These people are best sub-sub-genre famous or whatever. There is no singular internet culture. Its a lot of different cultures connected by tcp/ip.

There's something about entertainment that's just awful. The unbelievable egos involved, the entitlement, the lack of criticism, the fanboys/girls telling them they're awesome, etc. I imagine this all leads to some pretty sour attitudes like the one quoted. From a financial perspective 70k followers isn't a lot. Its not going to pay out. Even if each of those people gave you a dollar, which they wont - hell they're probably running ad block, its a measly $70k. For "real" famous people that's a rounding error.

The author's demographic audience is likely 12-15 year-old kids. This is why she cannot find any patreons. They don't even have a credit card to make a donation.

I'm with you! First off, authenticity is king in today's world. Second? This article screams entitlement. Well said!

Pretty sure many artist of that day had to paint wives/daughters of rich folks that they'd rather not have painted to get by. And most artists that sell for millions today were pretty poor unless they had a random rich person and were their "pet artist".

Probably why people picture Jesus as a European white guy.