Why are the artists still starving?

It argues that artists remain financially squeezed despite huge creative industries because demand and revenue structures favor social signaling and low-cost consumption rather than paying for art itself. Four linked theories are advanced: first, art enriches life but is not essential to survival, so people often buy art for social capital (status, community, shared experiences) rather than intrinsic value; examples include expensive collectors’ paintings, merch, and BookTok-driven book sales. Second, traditional revenue funnels that turned media into merchandise and ad revenue are collapsing as streaming, password sharing, piracy and the decline of physical media erode long-tail income and force platforms to experiment with ads and exclusivity.

The third theory is that producing high-quality art has grown far more expensive in money and time - modern blockbusters and complex TV/animation require huge budgets and long cycles, which pushes studios toward safe, IP-extending bets and compresses creators’ pay and time. The fourth is that distribution and entry costs are historically low, producing a deluge of free or cheap content (YouTube, short-form, algorithmic communities) that satisfies social needs and drowns discovery for higher-cost work. The piece closes by noting commerce fundamentals underlie these dynamics, gives the example of a $600 art book’s limited market, and asks for real-world exceptions or industry fixes rather than platitudes.