What dreams do you guys have/did you chase?
do you think it is better to follow ambitions which lead to success (by society's definition) and to do what "makes sense", or to follow your passions regardless of the disadvantages your lifestyle may suffer?
if so many people say the same thing, do you think that gives it more credit (ie, maybe they're on to something you dont know?)
Do what you think will make you happy. If you'll be happy with "success" as defined by our society, then go for that. If you'll be happier following your passions and don't mind making do with less, there's no point in not trying that option out first.
Other people don't necessarily know more than you. I think most of the difference in opinion stems from a difference in wants and desires.
What dreams do you guys have/did you chase?
You must make a living. You must create value. We are not separate from the material world. Other animals hunt or graze, we labor.
Creating value means providing something that other people want, so that they will exchange money (which is the quintessence of value itself). You labor to produce, whether that be working for someone else or working independently. We exchange this labor for the means to survive and prosper.
Where most people fail in pursuing their "passions" (whatever that means) is that they fail to monetize their labor. They even sometimes feel like it is beneath themselves to demand money for their produce. If you cannot reasonably demand money for your work, what does that say about how you regard your work? That it is not valuable? Is what you produce valuable? If so, you can make a living from it.
You must create value to exchange it for money. If you are creating art that no one wants, are you really creating art? Think about that.
Money is liquid value. It is also value neutral. Not wanting money is generally nonsensical as it can be put toward any purpose, especially non-materialistic purposes. If you mean to make some statement about the futility of purpose, then that is really outside the bounds of a discussion on following your passions (and being able to live at the same time). I mean, if their work is so important to someone that they do not want to exchange it for money, then that is a different topic. That does not mean what they do is not worth money.
If people are not willing to compensate you, how valuable is what you do? If you write a brilliant novel, wouldn't people be willing to reward you? I would. Does that mean you should seek money or prostitute yourself? No, but don't complain about being penniless and following dreams. The two are not mutually exclusive, we only make it so.
Can something be valuable only to one person and to no one else? Maybe, but I wouldn't consider this art as important as something that has the ability to resonate and impact other people. Look at the art of schizophrenics. It is normally so individualized and without unity that it just does not have the power to resonate with the viewer except on the level of oddball curiosity. True art impacts and connects. True art reflects back the universality of life and this world.
Second, to the bolded question, the answer is an emphatic NO. You are making it seem as though monetary value is something that is decided apart from historical and cultural context. That is wrong. A piece of art, for instance, may not be worth as much during one era (or in one part of the world at one time) as in another. This is where people get the phrase "starving artist"...because many great artists were obscure and underpaid during their time. Surely their work was not bad because no one wanted to pay them anything for it.
Their work was without value for them (bad) in that they did not benefit from it directly. Certainly this relies completely on context. Someone in the year 6000 may find the ashtray I made in middle school art class and decide that it is an artifact of priceless antiquity and value. Does that mean it is valuable? We can only discuss right now and we can really only measure using money. All other measures are purely subjective and without practical purpose.
That doesn't make sense. All you've managed to say here is that if you're creating art that no one wants, you're not going to get any money for it. Where do you get the idea that if one doesn't receive money for their art (or doesn't want to receive money for their work), that they don't regard it as valuable, or that it is not valuable in some other way?
tying in what nightning said "If you'll be happy with "success" as defined by our society, then go for that. If you'll be happier following your passions and don't mind making do with less, there's no point in not trying that option out first.", in other words, it depends whether you are more emotionally invested in how you integrate with society or your own individual experience.
I am not saying their is no satisfaction or joy in creation for one's own benefit or to serve some ideal or impulse. I'm just saying that if you want your labor to flow through to your life in such a way to where you may subsist on it, you must keep in mind its value. I agree with the subjectivity of the marketplace, however this is a subjectivity you can milk and transmute into the rudiments for continued corporeal existence.
Total agreement. Most people who abhor the idea of the marketplace for their 'art' are also people who are rather uncomfortable with most forms of social congress.