It seems to me very defensible that "how I became an artist" cannot be taught by someone who has only a few years behind.
"Becoming an artist", for real artists, is a life-long achievement, it takes a lot of struggles, travels (inside and outside), it requires knowing a lot, reading a lot, et cetera.
"How I became an artist" from a 20-so is a absurd, risible, as "how to learn Python in 20 mn"
My thoughts are that both views are valid. I don't think it'd be difficult to look back and discover that some of the great artists were tortured with what they did. My somewhat cynical view is that anything significant requires great sacrifice and no matter what positive spin you put on it, few great artists got there with an abound of positive emotions.
Getting good sucks. It sucks, a lot.
An anecdote I remember reading of the lives of famous musicians:
"[A fan] once came up to Fritz Kreisler after one of his concerts and said to him, “I’d give my life to play as beautifully as you do.” To which Kreisler replied, “I did.”
Positive spin might feel nice to read in a blog post, but I don't think it reflect the reality of the endeavor.
Also I agree with you, just replying here for, whatever.
... so the reason why this painter is 'not an artist' is because when he describes his journey in prose, he doesn't sound sufficiently woeful and depressed? If the tone of the article had focused more on the downsides and the setbacks, blowing them up out of proportion, his painting would have more meaning?
That indefensible statement alone is enough reason for a downvote, imho.