The more I paint and the more I run my own art business and observe others as they run their own creative businesses, I am more and more convinced that talent has nothing to do with success.

Yep, that’s right – talent has nothing to do with success.

Or at the least, very little to do with it. Don’t even get me started on the Britney Spears’s of the world. That’s besides the point. I’m not even talking about Britney’s baffling, yet overwhelming success. Even just simpler success. Making a living doing what you love. Becoming even semi internet famous.

There are several artists I can think of that are doing very well who, based purely on their artistic ability, I never would have guessed were wildly successful . Not that they’re bad artists per say, but is the level of talent directly related to the level of success? No.

Take Olivia Bennett for example. George W himself bought one of her paintings. Her stuff goes for several thousands of dollars and she’s compared to Georgia O’Keeffe and Claude Monet. While I think that her stuff is nice, and it’s not that she’s bad, don’t get me wrong – but I also think comparing her to Claude Monet is a bit of a stretch. (Nothing personal mind you, but I’d be hesitant to make that connection with most artists. Claude Monet was a genius. It’s not a word to be bandied around.)

I can also think of several other artists who are just as “talented”, if not more talented, than she is. But they’re not making $25 000 a pop.

Or Trisha Romance, an artist in Niagara whose original pieces go for up to $60 000. People in Niagara frigging adore Trisha Romance. Do I think she’s an especially talented artist? Not particularly. She can hold a brush. She can paint, yes. But do I think that the amount of “talent” she has is directly related to how much money she gets for a piece? Nope.

And don’t even get me started on Paris Hilton.

Now that I’ve thoroughly depressed you with the unfairness of the world…

The fact that these people are mildly talented yet wildly successful is very, very good news for you. Don’t worry, I can hear you yelling at me.

“Are you insane, Sarah?! That’s completely unfair. They should be amazingly talented to be making that kind of money! It’s not fair that they’re making so much. How can you say this is good news??!”

How? Because if they can do it, so can you.

It’s that simple. You can’t use lack of talent as an excuse to not do something you love. These people, however dubious their artistic genius may be, at least had the balls to try. (Or, in Olivia Bennett’s case, her parents did. She was something like 7 when they started selling her work. At that point, you’re just a kid happily making stuff.)

You can no longer use lack of talent as an excuse to not at least try. As long as you’re not still in the stick figure stage, or whatever would be the equivalent for your creative medium of choice, you have just as decent a shot at being wildly successful as anyone else.

Come on – Danielle Steele is a millionaire. She’s not exactly Dickens.

Damian Hirst put a shark in a formaldehyde tank and made 11 million pounds for it.

Every day people are making extraordinary amounts of money selling complete shite. The Pet Rock was a runaway hit. Milli Vanilli. I think I’ve made my point.

And you could argue with me, and tell me that you’re not selling crap, and that you have a soul and aren’t going to make your money writing crappy romance novels. Fine.

But tell me – if people are willing to pay good money for crap, or a mediocre amount of talent, if you actually went for it, if you actually tried for your dream, whatever it is – how much do you think they’d pay for your good stuff?

Just saying. It’s worth thinking about.