Manet, Degas, Turner and others were also successful in earning a decent living from their art. The American expatriat, Whistler was the toast of London. Though he, like Rembrandt, had difficulty managing money, neither had difficulty making it. The two most common icons held up to support the starving artist mystique are inevitably Van Gogh and Gauguin. Even if we allow some legitimacy in both cases, it must be noted that one was mad, and the other rejected a comfortable living as a banker and "chose" the exile of society in what might be considered the ultimate mid-life crisis. Van Gogh chose to short-circuit his rise to fame by ending his life early. Gauguin chose the bare-chested beauties of Tahiti and a severe case of syphilis which ended his life just three years short of fame and social acceptance of his work.
One painter, the American, Albert Pinkham Ryder, is a notable example on the starving artist on this continent, who did, indeed, live out his life in meager isolation and apparent poverty, painting with house paints and using inferior (non-archival) methods. But even here the myth is false. It's not commonly known, but his exile was also self-imposed and his works actually became well-known, much imitated, and badly faked during his own lifetime. The fact is, if you're good, acceptance and recognition is to be had. If you're NOT, then neither are deserved.