Plenty has been written about Annie Leibovitz and her financial woes, but after the latest exposé ran in The New York Times, Jean Chatsky used it to deconstruct the behavior of creative types and I thought her analysis was interesting.

She likens it to a couple of findings in her latest book, The Difference, where she looked at factors that held people back from financial success. Two of the traits were stubbornness and creativity:

People who defined themselves as completely creative — not just very creative, or somewhat creative — but completely creative, were not likely to attain great wealth.  Why is that?

… Sometimes very creative people seem to feel they are above all that.  Above all the minutia of bill-paying and record-keeping.  Above the tedious tasks like checkbook balancing that are necessary to get through life with ones credit score in tact.  They– not all but some of them —  think they should be given a free pass as if they’ve given their art to the world and the world should be grateful and not bug them above the little things.

She concludes the post by indicating that “getting by financially” is an important step in this day and age and perhaps, the problem could be solved by creative types hiring someone to handle the mundane task of managing their day-to-day finances.

Awhile back, Moorea agreed that financial planning is trickier for artists than most people and posted her four tricks to being a not-so-starving artist. I’d label Moorea a creative type and she seems to manage just fine.

So what are your thoughts? Do artists really feel they are about it all and that’s why they’re notoriously bad with money?

Photo credit: Flickr.