You won't see many woeful tales of overlooked artists in your average history book. Instead we are taught that the greats somehow make it, regardless of the adversity they face. I mean, just look at greats like Bukowski or Baldwin; these men faced far more challenges than us, and therefore success should be simple. At least, that is what we all tell ourselves. People are now expected to be great or grand, as opposed to content or fulfilled. It is almost unjust to pursue a life dedicated to pleasure, as opposed to rigorous, back breaking work. We still hear gossip columns, and gossipers, going on about the dangers of sex addiction or marijuana as if we are in the 1950s preparing to hide under our desks from Stalin's inevitably imaginary attack. People compare the amount of work that they do with each other; they bandy it about as a badge of honor. "Well, I pulled a triple this week. That's right, a triple!", they shout, thumping their chest like some sort of ape. Of course the motive behind this ape like behavior is to assert a kind of dominance much like our former orange baboon in chief, a rare breed indigenous to failed companies, president Trump. But it doesn't end there. We are expected to congratulate people for "sacrificing" or "taking the initiative". We hear terms like "team player" used to refer to people who "go the extra mile", and "take one for the time". We very rarely think of what is at risk here. We don't consider that going the extra mile may mean breaking the law or infringing upon personal liberties. We believe that our striving for prosperity is inherently good because, so the saying goes, more wealth equals progress. Neoliberals believe this gospel more than anyone else. However, this is not always the case. Did the industrial revolution lead to a healthier nation? Did the huge availability of access to gas guzzling cars really benefit humanity? Did the institution of factory farms improve the quality of goods that farms produce? Has having access to food and clothing on demand decreased poverty and famine in any way measurably positive? When we ask these really difficult questions, the ones that fewer and fewer people are willing to ask, we often find that the answers are quite complex. Indeed, it was mostly the wealthy and middle classes that benefited from the industrial revolution, and its ready made toxins they refer to as products. Poor people were mostly left out of the economic boom, a through point in history that often gets conveniently left out. Economic booms are built upon the backs of poor people, but the poor people do not get much out of it. Wealth and power are monopolized, and any hope for advancement is quickly squashed. Thus, the fantasy of working for a better future is a myth for the poor worker in America. Of course there are Bukowskis and Baldwins because there are a lot of people in the world. Sure, a few artists will be recognized as great. Whether they are or not is always up for discussion, but this will inevitably happen. I do not care what art you like. I am simply suggesting that we remember the backs of the poor people that is the foundation of great art. We need not stroke the ego of the tony winning actor or the Grammy winning musician. However, isn't it our duty to recall the overlooked artists, the people who often inspire movements, and new waves of thinking in their fields? Aren't there worthy people who are not chosen, who are simply forgotten and left behind? I think we care more about these forgotten ones, and less about the chosen people. It's nice to celebrate the victories, but we shouldn't forget the defeats. I've moved on from hating my enemies, but I'm not sure I'm quite ready to forgive, not after being forgotten, not after being overlooked. The next time I attend an audition, if there is a next time, I will remember my sacrifices, because, in reality, everyone else has forgotten them.