[infiniteparamtr]

I don't think that a failed artist would lose out on basic needs because of money. The average, economically entrenched observer would see a "successful artist" as one getting paid for their efforts.

I see a successful artist as someone who is creative enough to acquire basic needs, comforts, and actualization with little or no money - be it through bartering or learning to create for themselves.

Success can also come in the form of making statements about society through their medium(s) of choice, and ideally changing the outlook an audience.

In this regard, religion and arts were the first forms of software engineering - by the modification of the observers perspective.

Of course there is also aesthetic art, which is beautiful for us to admire because it is proof of the capacity of another humans attention to detail. These works usually don't seek to comment on the state of culture.

[ldp01]

> I don't think that a failed artist would lose out on basic needs because of money.

How many former humanities students do you know?

If success just means being happy with yourself then sure, go for it. However this is a retreat from what OP stated: "The World Belongs to Those Who Create VS Those Who Don't".

If we are restricting ourselves specifically to artists then, for an average person, becoming a materially successful artist requires capital investment and an appetite for risk (or a lack of understanding of the risks). The capital investment will most likely come from parents in the form of education, food, security, etc.

Becoming a successful artist without any of that support sounds like a horrible all-or-nothing proposition with no fall back position. (You have no capital if you fail because you didn't hedge your bets with a steadier/less fulfilling career).