> Someone who is understood to not have money by default — like an artist [...]
I'm sure we can all think of a few counter-examples to that one!
Rihanna: net worth: ~ $1.4 billion
Paul McCartney: net worth: ~ $1.2 billion
Bono: net worth: ~ $700 million
> then gets a sudden windfall is expected to use it responsibly
"Expected" - by whom?
I may be just a bit jaded, but we should perhaps consider the hypothesis that for very successful artists it's a simple commercial decision to signal you're acting responsibly with your wealth, otherwise your much, much less wealthy customers who are buying your output might start to notice, disapprove, and ultimately stop buying your output. One could call this "fiduciary duty to oneself", really.
There is an category of artist who become overnight famous and cannot deal with the sudden interest and wealth.
Here I'm thinking of young Johnny Depp or Kurt Cobain or Amy Winehouse, to give just three examples.
There are artists who do art for arts sake and not with the aim of getting wealthy. When these artists do have success, they can potentially become overwhelmed.
I'm sure we can all think of a few counter-examples to that one!
Rihanna: net worth: ~ $1.4 billion Paul McCartney: net worth: ~ $1.2 billion Bono: net worth: ~ $700 million
> then gets a sudden windfall is expected to use it responsibly
"Expected" - by whom?
I may be just a bit jaded, but we should perhaps consider the hypothesis that for very successful artists it's a simple commercial decision to signal you're acting responsibly with your wealth, otherwise your much, much less wealthy customers who are buying your output might start to notice, disapprove, and ultimately stop buying your output. One could call this "fiduciary duty to oneself", really.