The “starving artist” trope, at this point, informs most people’s default idea of an artist — especially most visual artists, outside of the ones that got paid in Facebook stock. It feels like if you ask someone to visualize a historical painter, they’re automatically going to plop them in a leaky studio that reeks of pig shit, gnawing on one big bean for dinner. It’s also led along by artists like Vincent van Gogh, who famously died in poverty, with one less ear than is ideal. So much so that I think some people assume even world-famous artists from the past all went unrecognized, which very much wasn’t the case.
Leonardo Da Vinci
The primary income for Da Vinci was through working for nobles, and receiving an “appanage,” a sort of yearly salary. These ranged between 1,000 and 2,000 gold ducats, which comes out to roughly between $2 million and $3 million a year. Not bad.
Michelangelo
Yeah, those chapel ceilings don’t come cheap. Michelangelo wasn’t only well-compensated, but it’s thought he was one of the richest artists in history. Through commissions like the Sistine Chapel, he put together a fortune worth over $67 million in today’s money.
Raphael
Our third painter (and ninja turtle), Raphael, wasn’t lacking in fame or money while alive. He was considered the most important painter in Rome, and was the darling of the Medici family, who were well-off to say the least. He even died a fame-worthy death, rumored to have expired due to excessive love-making.
Claude Monet
Those famous garden scenes Monet painted? Many of them were Monet’s own. His paintings sold well, and he reaped the benefits, including a massive house with six gardeners hired to tend to the subjects of his paintings.
Peter Paul Rubens
Peter Paul Rubens was born rich, so even if his art sucked, he would have lived a life of luxury. Luckily enough, he had the knack, and was awash with expensive commissions, more than he ever could have actually finished. He died as the proud owner of both a mansion and country estate.
Jan van Eyck
Like Da Vinci, van Eyck also had an incredibly wealthy patron in the form of the Duke of Burgundy. Even with every living expense easily covered, he still produced many incredibly valuable commissions.
Rembrandt
Rembrandt’s finances might be confusing given that when he died, he was indeed in dire financial straits. That was due to his own wild spending, though, and it was far from how he spent much of his life. He did at one point live surrounded by luxury, even if he eventually had to auction most of it off.
Salvador Dali
More recent is the famously strange Dali. None of his work, however, was too weird to fetch outlandish market prices. He died with a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Pablo Picasso
Another recent artist who amassed a remarkable amount of stacks over his lifetime was Picasso. Even leaving out possessions, when he died, he was in possession of $4.5 million in cash and $1.3 million in gold alone, no auctions needed.
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Tossing in one artist of a less visual medium, some people have the incorrect belief that Mozart was a frustrated, empty-walleted genius. Probably pushed along in part by the movie Amadeus.In fact, he was one of the richest people in all of Vienna during his lifetime.