What’s Really Behind Art

When art was a fire, not a business—what changed, and why purpose now fades the moment money comes.

Once upon a time, artists painted until their hands bled and their stomachs starved. Van Gogh, for example, created over 900 paintings yet sold only one during his lifetime—The Red Vineyard—and that sale didn’t even come from him hustling on the streets. It was his brother Theo, an art dealer, who kept trying to place Vincent’s work in galleries. The truth is, Van Gogh wasn’t built for marketing. He wasn’t chasing profit. His art was too raw, too ahead of its time, and the world wasn’t ready.

The same could be said for many others: Schubert wrote over 600 pieces of music but lived and died poor, Beethoven carried more debts than applause. They didn’t treat their gift as merchandise. Their art wasn’t a product to scale—it was a fire that burned whether anyone cared or not.

Back then, when you asked a child:

What do you want to be when you grow up, and why?” the answers carried soul.

I want to become a doctor, to heal the sick.”

I want to become a teacher, to shape young minds.”

Now? The script has changed.

“I want to be like Taylor Swift—rich and famous.”

The why has been lost. The purpose swallowed by the spotlight.

This is what hides behind art today: performance dressed as meaning. Statements crafted for headlines. Activism turned into branding. Music released like products on a shelf.

Look at me, I sacrificed.” “Look at me, I took a stand.” But when the money comes, the cause they claimed to fight for fades away like icing on a cake.

And here’s the truth:

Real art doesn’t need a press release. Real art doesn’t have to tell you it’s profound. It simply exists, unpolished, burning, inconvenient, alive. You can feel it in your gut before you can explain it with words. That’s the difference between something created to be consumed and something created because it had to be born.

So the question is no longer “What do you want to be when you grow up?”

The real question is: “Why do you create at all?”

Because the spotlight dies when the crowd disappears. But fire, real fire, keeps burning even when no one is watching.

ᴛʸᵖⁱⁿᵍ ᴏᵘᵗ ᵒᶠ ᵗʰᵉ ʙˡᵘᵉ ᵈᵃʳᵉᵐ ᵐᵘˢⁱᶜ ᵇˡᵒᵍ

Bach: Gavotte en Rondeau (from Violin Partita No. 3, BWV 1006)—Transcribed for Guitar • Darem Placer
Bach and I on Guitar includes Bach’s Gavotte en Rondeau

No Wrong Grammar in Songs? Well…Kinda

Songs break grammar rules all the time—but in music, emotion beats textbooks every time.

There are no strict grammar rules in lyric writing. Songwriters can switch tenses, repeat words, invent lines, or even ignore sentence structure—because songs aren’t made to follow textbooks. They’re made to capture something real in just a few minutes.

In one short song, you can fit the past, present, and future. So even if it’s “wrong” by grammar standards, it can still sound right in music.

Check these real lines:

“She don’t know she’s beautiful” – Sammy Kershaw
It should be doesn’t, but don’t hits harder—simpler, rawer.

“I can’t get no satisfaction” – The Rolling Stones
Double negative, yes—but it adds frustration. You feel the longing.

“We was just kids when we fell in love” – Ed Sheeran
Technically were, but was feels more nostalgic, more real.

“Ain’t no sunshine when she’s gone” – Bill Withers
Ain’t isn’t formal, but it’s soulful. There isn’t just doesn’t hit.

“I seen it all” – Kanye West
It should be I’ve seen, but I seen sounds streetwise and confident.

“You was my best toy” – Adrian Gurvitz
Correct is you were, but you was gives a laid-back, bluesy feel.

Songs like these don’t follow grammar rules—they follow emotion.

But don’t take it too far.

Just because it works in a song doesn’t mean it’s okay in conversation, recitation, or a report. Not everything that sings well sounds good in real life.

Lyrics are freedom. You can say anything in a song—and it still works.

But if you’re not planning to sing it, better say it right.

ᴛʸᵖⁱⁿᵍ ᴏᵘᵗ ᵒᶠ ᵗʰᵉ ʙˡᵘᵉ ᵈᵃʳᵉᵐ ᵐᵘˢⁱᶜ ᵇˡᵒᵍ