Success Manifesto

Van Gogh didn?t sell a painting during his lifetime (according to the movie, Mona Lisa Smile). Yet, today he is considered one of the world?s most famous painters. In choosing to fully express himself, Van Gogh did not become ?financially? successful from his art (forgive and correct me if I?m wrong art history majors). Was his artistic integrity worth it in the end? Was being a starving artist worth it?

The past few years, I?ve been fairly cutting-edge or "out there" depending on how you look at it. I?ve gotten very interested in entrepreneurship, spirituality, health (raw food), alternative education, and creativity and really enjoyed learning about these areas of life that I had never been meaningfully exposed to while living in a suburban town in New Jersey.

So let me reflect with some questions:

• Which of the three choices below is better:
  1. Fitting into evolving cultural and financial systems. By fitting in an individual capitalizes on what is accepted or proven to work. If people wear suffocating pieces of fabric around their neck (ties) in the business world, then they wear ties too. If everybody around them gets high grades, goes to good schools, and follows a certain career path, then they follow that path too. While this path seems to have the least resistance it is risky because the system is always evolving and when the system changes, this individual might get the short-end of the stick.
     
  2. Being cutting-edge. This is an individual who participates in the cultural and financial institutions of the time, but who actively makes decisions based on their private beliefs about the world, which may not be proven or accepted.
     
  3. Being the "Starving Artist". The starving artist stays true to his/her "unconventional" beliefs about the world and expresses them, whether or not they are popular with other people. Van Gogh was a starving artist. Galileo was a starving artist. For example, born in 1564, Galileo invented the telescope. Using this invention he confirmed that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around. As a result of exposing/confirming this theory and teaching it to his students at university, even though it went against the beliefs of the Catholic Church, he was convicted of heresy and life imprisonment (because of old age, he was alllowed to pass the sentence at his villa). Is it worth being the Galileo of the world? Is it worth being the Van Gogh of the world?
  
  
• Is it possible to not sacrifice artistic integrity and still capitalize on the cultural and financial system? Is it bad to 'tweak' artistic integrity? For example, is it bad for a publisher who believes in helping the environment, to not use soy ink or recycled paper for printing materials to save costs? What if the business could not be started without using "normal" paper and ink?
  
• Should one choose to fit in until one has achieved a large amount of cultural respect and/or financial success and then become cutting-edge or "out there"? For example, I've heard from numerous people that have met him, that Tommy Hilfiger wears very scrappy clothes that are sometimes not even from his own company. If he did this when he was first starting his company, people would question his commitment and fashion-style. At a recent Business Today conference, Russell Simmons wore attire from his line of clothes (Phat Farm) even though he was speaking to an audience who was dressed in suits. If I did this, it might be considered weird.