The Real Reason Why Artists Die Without A Will

There is a long list of famous people who died without having a will. In recent years, music icons Prince and Aretha Franklin shocked the world when it was reported that neither had a will or estate plan when they died. A recent study shows that 60% of all Americans currently do not have a Will. The question is: Why? Some will say that the reason is simply that artists like Prince and Aretha Franklin do not want to think about their death, that they feel a sense of immortality and that planning for their death is just not at the top of an artist’s list of priorities and is continually pushed off while their career and other matters are focused on. While there may be some truth to these assertions, the problem is actually a lot more complex. In fact, the real reason why artists like Prince and Aretha Franklin die without a will has less to do with the artist failing to act and more to do with how legal, tax, financial and other professional advisors address the issue.

Artists don’t just leave an estate, they leave a lasting legacy, which necessitates a legacy plan.

First, speaking in terms of an artist needing a will or a traditional estate plan is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole—it just does not fit. Artists are not like most people. They think differently, view the world from unique perspectives, often have complicated and nontraditional personal lives and lifestyles and, most importantly, artists live to create. Sure, certain successful artists can make a lot of money, acquire a lavish lifestyle, and own exotic luxury items like jewelry, yachts, planes, real estate, etc., but that is not what artists care most about. At the end of the day, it is their art—what they create, how they express themselves and the impact they make on the world, the matters most. A traditional estate plan deals merely with what happens to an artist’s property when the artist dies. It fails to capture the totality of who the artist was during their life or the impact the artist and their works had on society and culture. Artists don’t just leave an estate, they leave a lasting legacy, which necessitates a legacy plan. With traditional estate planning, the discussion about “legacy assets” (the artist’s creative works and other assets that make up and define the artist’s legacy) get lumped together with a discussion about non-legacy assets (like their cash, stocks, bonds, life insurance and all of the other boring stuff most artists do not want to think about). Not only should legacy assets be discussed separately with an artist for the sake of keeping the artist focused and able to make decisions, but rarely should legacy assets ever be managed and controlled in the same manner as non-legacy assets. Legacy assets require an entirely separate plan—a legacy plan—which ultimately can and should be integrated with the artist’s traditional estate planning.

A traditional estate plan deals merely with what happens to an artist’s property when the artist dies. It fails to capture the totality of who the artist was during their life or the impact the artist and their works had on society and culture.

Second, traditional estate planning is all about death. Legacy planning, on the other hand, is about life. The legacy that an artist ultimately leaves behind is the sum total of the life the artist lives. The legal structure through which an artist creates, owns and manages their works is the framework through which the artist’s legacy is proactively and intentionally built. It will be that same legal structure that survives beyond the artist’s lifetime, protecting and celebrating that artist’s legacy for generations to come. If the focus is on the artist’s life—not just the contracts, deals, brand opportunities, etc., but the legal structure through which the artist lives and creates—then what happens to the artist’s legacy assets when the artist dies will be better provided for.

Finally, estate planners give the impression that once an artist signs their estate planning documents all of the artist’s personal affairs are in order so they don’t have to think about it anymore and can get on to more important things. This is consistent with the general transaction view of the world most advisors have—deals are done, documents are signed, projects completed, etc. The problem is that an artist’s legacy is never final—it is an ever evolving, living, breathing organism that requires ongoing attention and care. Even when and artist dies, the artist’s legacy continues. It never ends. Drafting documents, putting a legal structure in place to manage and control an artist’s legacy assets, is only the beginning. There needs to be a process to carry the artist’s legacy forward. There needs to be a system in place that is able to evolve as the artist evolves. Beginning that process as early as possible during the artist’s lifetime will not only ensure that the artist can create the legacy they want to leave behind, but it will ensure that there is a seamless transition of the management and control of the artist’s legacy when the artist dies.

Asking why so many artists die without having a will in place is like asking why so many monkeys don’t wear pants. What we really want to know is why so many artists do not have a plan in place for what happens to their legacy when they die. The answer is, because they don’t truly have a plan in place for what happens to their legacy while they are alive.