That is quite literally how it works, although most emerging artists (who are serious about their career, and who have a real chance at regional or national prominence) would probably not describe what they're doing as "noble", more like "crazy", but in the understanding that that's also the only path that works for them.
The other option is to have rich parents. Sounds snarky, but it's true. In that case, you also get contacts and an understanding of the social class of most collectors.
(My wife got her MFA from UCLA and shows around LA.)
The sentiment is understandable.
The myth of the starving artist suffering for his
art was already (mostly) nonsense when it was dreamed up
in the romantic era and it's high time, I think, that
after two hundred years we start thinking about
putting it to rest once and for all.
I'm not sure how much suffering was done, but as far as artists maintaining cheap living arrangements so they can focus on their art without having to earn much income, that's not exactly a myth. From French Impressionist painters living in garrets, to 80s punk rockers living in cheap lofts, it's a pretty common way of self-funding art production...
Yeah, but note I said it was a myth dreamed up in the romantic era, which would be around 1800 or so. People have been making art since way, way before that, and some of it is really quite good, despite the creators thinking of themselves primarily as craftsmen rather than as purveyors of a higher cause for which one should be suffering.
Next time you're at a nice restaurant (or Starbucks) ask your server what their real passion is. Not starving or suffering, but many people still do take low paying work while trying to start a career in writing/acting/etc.
The other option is to have rich parents. Sounds snarky, but it's true. In that case, you also get contacts and an understanding of the social class of most collectors.
(My wife got her MFA from UCLA and shows around LA.)