What do you think is the best option when a person wants to try make a living using their creative talents?...

"Most artists are poor business people". Too trusting sometimes perhaps. I know one lady who did well with her paintings but got scammed a couple of times by letting someone take some of her works to an art show then never heard from the person again. 
She told me about one time an elderly gal commissioned her to do the lady's portrait. While doing the painting she decided to add a budgie bird into the picture. When time came to reveal the finished product she was a little worried the lady might not like the bird in there. But the lady exclaimed "that bird is an exact likeness of the budgie I owned some years ago! !"

Thanks for the pick, Kitty.

Too trusting. Yes. I had that experience very early.
Was commissioned to do a portrait of a man's Dalmation dog. When it was done he loved it but refused to pay the agreed price or give the portrait back. At the time, I really needed that money and was very angry. Art materials are hideously expensive. Yet there were no local police and so absolutely nothing I could do about it.

But I meant being poor at business in a much broader way. 
It's OK for an artist to state the facts of their achievements - such as one would find in a CV, or to advertise an upcoming event with the date, time, place and nature of the work. But it's not OK for an artist to boast about the quality, originality and significance of their work. Someone else has to do that for them.
If a writer decides to self-publish, which is commonplace and acceptable these days, he or she has to give up writing and go on the road to festivals and bookshops to sell the work. Selling online is notoriously disastrous, especially via rip-off companies like Amazon. It's enormously hard work and rarely repays the cost of the print-run, let alone the time it took to write the book. If a writer has a good agent or publisher, all that work is done for them; they're free to get on with writing.
Painters and sculptors rarely have a social network that enables them to sell to art patrons and investors. Selling to friends and acquaintances has drawbacks. There's a limit to how many artworks an average person has space for - and no friend or relative wants to feel obliged to buy - especially if they don't like the work. To make a living artists need to sell to collectors, public galleries, architects, interior designers, public commissions and so on - as well as winning competitions, and getting grants and fellowships. They need to have their work reviewed by art critics in newspapers and trade journals. And as they progress, they need to be included in the history of art by art historians. This last guarantees the value of their work. They've finally arrived at being able to earn a living.
Musicians often fair a bit better. The members of a symphony orchestra in a major city can often get by on their wages. Many people love live music played locally, and many will buy CD's when they're at a performance. I know of several who can make a living solely from busking. But if a musician wants a high standard of living, they will need to be way above competent, have an agent to promote them and be willing to spend most of their time travelling.




This post was edited by inky at January 8, 2020 4:27 PM MST

Yeah.. making a living producing and selling one's artworks is a complex and interesting kind of business.