The artistic temperament and money
Ugh
Years ago I worked with a bunch of blind kids, and these two hilarious teenage boys, Carlos and Justin, would always insist to me and to anyone who would listen that, stereotypes be damned, they had really, really effing good hearing. Their argument was something like this:
“It’s not politically correct to say that blind people can hear better than sighted people — we’re not bats — but, um, hello? We’re BLIND. Listening is what we do. OF COURSE we can hear better than you.”
And they could. They could tell who I was by my footsteps from fifty feet away. They were eerily good mimics. They were gifted musicians without formal training who could pick up an instrument and just play.
Even though the idea of an “artistic temperament” can be so cringe, I mean, hello? Artists are ARTISTS. Of course they’re going to be more creative than bankers!
At least as it pertains to money, though, I don’t think the artistic temperament has a uniform character. Some people are born into blue-collar families but have champagne tastes and live for the day; others are born with huge trust funds but pinch pennies and love spreadsheets. This is of course just true of people, but with regard to artists they way it manifests all seems deeply connected to the qualities that drive people to engage in wildly-unprofitable activities like writing poems and making collages and experimenting for hours with the sound you can get out of the flugelhorn you picked up at an estate sale for nine dollars.
If you’ll accept my proposition that people tend to sort pretty neatly into 1s and 2s —
Don’t give AF about $
Give a definite F about $
— then for the artistic temperament these might take on a very specific character, like so:
Some 1s are 1s because they find money to be poisonous and indeed the root of all evil.
Some lucky few are 1s because they are bright and easy spirits who naturally just bear the world very lightly.
Some 1s never worry about money because they were put on this earth to rage against the dying of the light — money for them is a delight to lavish on others when they have it (picking up bar tabs etc.) and of no consequence when they don’t (due to being too busy raging etc.)
I suspect many 1s are 1s because money is just intolerably boring to them.
For the record, I think artistic-temperament 2s are very unlikely to be driven by greed. Instead,
Some 2s are 2s because they also find money to be poisonous and indeed the root of all evil — and so they think continually about it and fret continually about it.
Some 2s are 2s because they are deeply thoughtful and intentional about every action they take, which absolutely includes how and where they choose to spend money.
Some 2s see money very practically and primarily as a means to an end: a way of having the time and independence that they prize above all else.
Some 2s see money as an interesting system/puzzle/game – they know it’s all imaginary, and that allows them to play the game with enjoyment and ease.
Some 2s might be former 1s who are getting older and starting to carry a lot of stress about money.
Some 2s have been forced to become 2s because of the responsibilities they have to family members, etc.
(I suppose there are people who feel truly neutral toward money, but I can only imagine that they are quite rare.)
None of these categories or descriptors are hard and fast, and I’m definitely making it all up, but if you’ll grant me it nonetheless, it might be a useful exercise to reflect on oneself and decide if and how our particular 1ness or 2ness leads to our flourishing and ability to be of service, or only to bitterness and heartache.