Know how many paintings Van Gogh sold during his lifetime?
Yeah, one.
More renowned for missing an ear than for his renditions of night skies and sunflowers. At least when he was alive.
How tragic is that? You paint your heart out and die in obscurity—only to be declared immortal once you are in a supposed better place.
Even the gun he killed himself with got auctioned off—for more than 100k, probably enough to last his frugality a lifetime. If, well, he were alive. But in that case—yeah.
The death multiplier, which makes everything more interesting, of course has to be factored in. An average artist times death equals an above-average artist. An above-average artist times death is GOATed post-mortem. But this can only account for so much. Zero times death still equals zero.
Art may be subjective, but it is hard to deem Vince a zero, if you look at the right works. There was considerable talent. Which must have made it all the more frustrating. Why is this thing not working out?
It was a much discussed topic in the letters he wrote his brother Theo.
“I think that what you say is true, that my work will have to get much better, but at the same time also that your efforts to do something with it might also be a little more decisive. You have never yet sold a single thing of mine — not for a lot or a little — and IN FACT HAVEN’T TRIED TO YET.”
Admirable isn’t it, how he first admits he can do better, before taking his starving artistry out on his bro. Regardless of who is at fault, those two sentences do touch upon the alchemy of artistic success. Which really didn't change over the last 150 years.
Success = talent x discoverability
A good G.I. Jane joke in front of your mirror is no better than a bad G.I. Jane joke in front of the whole world and Hitch. Though one may hurt more.
Despite his best efforts approaching art dealers, museums and brothers, Van Gogh was ultimately cracking jokes in front of his mirror. And no matter how much better the madman got, it would make no difference if discoverability was not taken care of—something Theo was supposed to help with. ‘Cause discoverability wasn’t simply a natural consequence of talent—not in 1885 at least.
Of course much changed since then—kinda. In today’s ‘creator economy,’ anyone with an internet connection can hang themselves in museums like Instagram and Spotify. But still, talent-driven discoverability is not a given.
The new age adage ‘if you build it they will come’ is an adage not because it is true but because builders want to believe it. If it is good they may stay is more true, but still that is at the mercy of them coming in the first place. Just because it sounds like a Satisfyer ad, doesn’t mean it is untrue.
So how do you make them come? As far as art is concerned, one typical tactic includes sharing it with friends in the hope it spreads like wildfire. But equating good work with virality would be short-sighted. Or do you still listen to Gangnam Style?
Listen to this girl:
Good right? How many monthly listeners you think?
27.
Yeah maybe not your mainstream hit, but it takes about 2 seconds to hear she’s got the talent part of the equation figured out. It’d be ridiculous to say there are no more than 27 people in a pond of 7 billion that she resonates with.
As far as her records show, she quit since this first album, released 4 years ago. Which is such a shame. But 2,000 plays and 27 monthly listeners are not exactly go-signs for pursuing a career in music. And not everyone has the heart to go Van Gogh; paint paint paint, sell nothing, cut an ear off and call it a life.
Whether music, art or any other matter of taste; it’s a Sisyphean task newcomers have to undertake, fighting uphill battles against chartists, the established names riding waves from 5 years ago. Or 50. The 1 percent, getting 99 percent of the eyes and ears. And of course these elite create cool things too, but the attention is disproportionate.
Neither the newcomers nor the chartists are to blame for this. It’s the claw.
You saw Toy Story right? Remember when Buzz meets those aliens in the claw machine and asks them who is in charge? The camera pans upwards and in unison they say
The claw decides who of the aliens make it out to the discoverable world. They are the 99 percent which modern museum curators like Spotify consider one and the same. So they dump them all into one bucket, away from the big Buzz Lightyear rollercoaster—the overexposed chartists.
Us users can still pick, but it is not exactly Sophie’s choice if it’s between a prominent Buzz Lightyear rollercoaster or working that claw in the corner and maybe winning something. Between consuming the curated 1 percent and working to maybe discover something sick in the other 99.
The road to the 99 is paved with bad intentions. Searching Soul with less than 1,000 plays should technically be possible—in reality it is not. Filtering for hip hop released a minute ago should technically be possible—in reality it is not.
It is one thing for the claw to get a not-so-promininent placement. It is another for it to be so poorly designed.
But rather than redesigning the claw, big tech like Spotify shoves the novel and popular down our throats. Even Discover Weekly is full of it.
Business as unusual
From a business perspective it seems perfectly logical. Why change a winning team of artists that already strike a chord?
But even that argument stops making sense when users log off because they are unable to discover something truly new. Which is a lose-lose-lose situation: the user is unhappy, the company doesn’t get engagement and the obscure artist about to be chosen by the claw has to keep waiting.
It is not big tech’s sole duty to take on discoverability. But if they truly care about art and not just the bottom line, they should do something. The 1 percent is huge, but it is no guarantee society uncovered all the latent Van Gogh’s of our time. As we speak, the next Kendrick and the new Coco may hopelessly be wondering what the hell they are doing wrong.
All the technology to discover hidden talent already exists. A.I. and algorithms could uncover so many gems if only big tech would allow it. But they are using the very technology that could help us discover today’s Van Gogh’s, to keep us in 1 percent cycles. As long as technology isn’t geared to more unbiased discovery it is not much of a game-changer.
Hopeful forces like Substack and Bandcamp are already arising, and they are proving to be meaningful to both the 1 percent and the indie creator. Which is a step in the direction of a wonderful world, with much more talent than now meets the eye. And much more tailored to each aficionado’s taste.
But until then it is on us onlookers to find and stimulate the discovery of the 99—not out of simp support, but because artists like Maya Beth Atkins deserve more attention. Before they throw the towel, or relive Van Gogh’s troubled existence. Which is why we should never feel weird sharing our excitement for some distant acquaintance’s artwork. Or a stranger’s song. Worst case scenario it makes their day—best case scenario it lands in the right hands.
And that can make all the difference. Like between an under appreciated artist and a promising career. With or without ear.