Wow. This is a great response! Thanks for reading and thanks for the opportunity for refinement.

I conceptually agree with your definition of a continuum but I do not think the analogy of temperature that you provide is the most appropriate. In middle of a temperature scale, you might not have equal parts hot and cold — it might be just lukewarm. But the middle of this continuum, you can have equal parts of each end. I view this continuum as closer to a tension between two viewpoints.

I do think there is a continuum at work here for artists. I see it nearly every day in my interactions with artists. But it may not be as simple as what I drew on the diagram.

Also, I am not sure how Steve Jobs and Apple illustrate your point.

I definitely do not intend to convey that art and business cannot coexist. That is not true at all. But there are certainly artists who do not understand anything about business or how to make money from their art. To reference your idea of the continuum, there are places where both art and business co-exist: namely, the middle. In my life, I find that I cannot help people at one extreme and I do not want to help people at the other. I have a sweet spot that pre-qualifies the people that I want to work with.

In thinking about Cirque du Soleil, I think this illustrates my idea perfectly. What is the art? Dancing, gymnastics, strength, acting, etc. Can those be done in a different way, without the business mindset or approach? I would say yes.

For example, an amazing performer (certainly one worthy of performing in Cirque du Soleil) could attempt to perform in the street. The performer might expect tips from people passing by. The level of artistry from the performer could be exactly the same as if the performer worked in a show by Cirque du Soleil. But what is the difference?

I would argue there is a different mindset in my example than in Cirque du Soleil. I coined it a “business” mindset because that makes the most sense to me and many of the artists that I communicate with.

Cirque du Soleil has capitalized on marketing, location, legal, accounting, leadership, managerial efforts, etc. In essence, none of those things deal with the “art” mindset, but rather a “business” mindset. Add the business mindset to incredible artistry and you have something I love to watch.

And this “business” mindset I am referring to is certainly a missing link for many artists. If an artist won’t hire a lawyer (or let one help you for free, which I often do), you absolutely have a different mindset than someone else who understands the value in understanding legal rights. I only use a lawyer as an example because that is the field I work in the most. But it could equally apply to marketing, accounting, other advisors, and more.

As a refinement, possibly my continuum is one of an “art mindset” to a “business mindset” rather than strictly art and business.

Also, in my experience the continuum I am referring to is not necessarily one of poverty to profit. An artist can have a “business” mindset but also be “poor.” Furthermore, poverty to wealth (or “profit” as you use the term) is a continuum by definition. I don’t think you can be in poverty and be wealthy, at least in terms of financial attainment. But I do think you can have a “business” mindset and still be poor as an artist. It takes more than just having the mindset, but the mindset certainly can be a prerequisite.

In terms of some artists who view profit or pandering to the audience as sacrificing art, or being a “sell-out,” I personally view the attitude as one of not understanding how business works. An artist should not be mad because people don’t want to pay for the art. People make a purchase for the value that the art provides to them — not the value that the artist provides to himself or herself by making the art.

To call back to my example of Orson Welles: think of Citizen Kane. It was a brilliant work of art and incredible in so many ways. But it was also a horrible business decision: make your first movie as a biting satire of the world’s most powerful newspaper magnate. Furthermore, the crowning word of the entire film, “Rosebud,” was possibly the most insulting piece of the film. Welles’s career suffered since the movie was released in 1941. In many ways, his problem of too many limitations was caused by his inability to attract funding for his movies due to this “business” decision (and some of his later movies are also completely brilliant, in my opinion).

In summary, thank you for this comment! It has certainly prompted me to think even more deeply on this topic.

I think my view has been informed by hundreds of conversations with artists. I have had writers call me and ask me to read their screenplay. Yet the script is never sold or produced. Why? Is it because the screenplay is poor? Not at all. They do not understand the current business model. You have horrible odds of success if all you do is pitch your screenplay and wait for someone to “pick you.”

Other writers call me and ask me how to produce the screenplay. They want to know how to attract investors. How to attract distributors. How to attract top talent. How to create and meet a budget. How to work with unions. How to comply with securities laws. And dozens of other topics. And I have worked with many writers who have produced their own screenplay using this advice and this “business” mindset.

I ask myself: what is the difference? So far, my answer is moving from an “art” mindset to a “business” mindset.

In fact, a large part of my job is being the person who helps the artist move from a strictly “art” mindset to an “art and business” mindset.

Thanks, again, for the response and for the opportunity to refine and clarify!