I agree. Many artists have had to make difficult choices to continue to create and put food on the table. My piece simply questions (tongue in cheek), whether the act of « suffering » alone is enough for the Art to be recognized, as my ex student was implying !
Art is a language. If spoken with passion, it will touch people.
I would say that, for an artist like Van Gogh, the word would not have entered his consciousness - he simply had to paint. I suggest that suffering for him would be not painting - that his focus on doing just that, to the detriment of everything else in his life, produced vibrant work, full of that focused energy that we admire today.

Do we need to know about Van Gogh’s mental torment to appreciate his paintings? Yes, we do. If the paintings were mediocre, would his suffering and passion be enough to carry them? I don.t think so. I know that the image of the solitary artist is a romantic one - but if the work is second rate, where does that leave us?
I understand that a story can lead us to Art. I also believe that the Art should stand on it’s own merits, whatever it’s provenance.
Thanks for reading - if you would like to see what I paint (!):
https://www.instagram.com/playspowys