Our society believes in or hope at some point on the fairness of meritocracy. But meritocracy, or the believe on it, have its side effects on our perception, which I talked about related to Artists and I bring this passage here now:
How is archivment attached to hard work?
"It can be attached or not to hard work. For most it will demand hard work (for some much more hard work and for some others much less).
Not only hard work in the work itself but on creating the right condition, getting on the right place and have the access and attention of the right people. Even the hard work of finding out the right condition before even try, and have to work hard again for every wrong move. Plus the hard work of earning a living and have money and find time to work on the art itself.
And all this hard work is a big disadvantage because they distract one from the art itself.
But there are some or many who don't have some or many of theses obstacles. Or because they are born with all this access covered or because they tripped in by accident. (Yes, there is the luck factor too and many artists move to NY, Paris and so on as attempting to increase their luck, meaning being found by somebody who may be willing to help jump all, or some, of the obstacles described above).
It is a extreme huge difference from those who parents have invest fully in their creativity/art interest since childhood, went to college and never had to earn a living, met contact in the college (when their parents don't have already the right contact for them), get shows and events to show their works under the institution's name and publicity (when their family doesn't have money to invest in their own show and publicity)...
...and many other aspects which can make the hard work worth or bring results or not.
Ansel Adams started to actually get the reputation and money for his masterpieces after an investor decided to "do the hard work for him", meaning show his work to the right people, the right place and make the right marketing. He would never be the great photographer we know without his rich father and then his rich wife, so he could live focused on creating what he considered to be a good piece, without the survive worries distraction.
Now that Adams is recognized the Art World says he was an especial man who couln't deal with bureaucracy and stress. If he hadn't the right condition to master his images and then attract a investor on his old age, he would be called as lazy, even if he had work harder to be able keep financing his photographs and earning a living at the same time.
Lartigue who was considered a great and genius photographer when child while he was in a very rich family and among rich people, become nobody when his family lost everything and he had no money and nobody else, and spend the rest of his life trying to become a fashion photographer without success.
[...] I am referring to society believe in a whole and it's consequences (in a point of view I believe), which the reason the "artist" status becomes so attached or sole attached to monetary success, which is deceived to the sole idea of hard working. ("No money" gain the meaning of "no merit". To be artist is an merit for most and therefore have to be associated to earn money). "
As Alain de Botton says we seek status, even when there is no money related, because we want be well treated and welcomed. Unfortunately people in society tends to treat each other different according to their social status (or value in society). In most part it is about their earnings.
To look for others recognition as artist is to look for status somehow. The other recognition (or status) is just a perception. And perception is not direct related to reality.