Yeah, but here's the big difference: in painting, or sculpture, or writing, or drawing, or almost any other artistic endeavor: you can do those largely by yourself without spending buttloads of money!
You don't have to buy a $17,500 paint set, and then another $30,000 in support gear, and then buy $10,000 worth of easels and another $5,000 worth of paint thinner. You buy a fifty-dollar paint set from Toys R Us, or you buy the good stuff, doesn't matter -- no matter what you spend it ain't gonna add up to film equipment.
So you're in it for "free."
But that's just equipment. What about the actual painting (or sculpting or writing) process? Do you have to get a cast and crew of 10 to 20 people together, bring them to various locations, have them hold props that you've made and wear costumes that you've bought them, feed them, pay for those locations, and on and on? No, with the individual arts you can do those in your living room.
The "indie filmmaker"? He's going to carry around $30,000 of debt on his credit card for the rest of his life if his film doesn't sell. And that's his FIRST film. Presuming he does a second one, it all starts over again.
That's a very good point. One could argue, however, that if you want to be a "succesful artist"in other mediums nowadays, those 30 000 dollars would also have to be spent: on lobbying, social parties, galleries showings, other artist/critics recognition, press awareness, etc.
It can, like you said and well, Barry, be a much cheaper venture for the creative part- since it basicaly depends on the artist and the "canvas" (paper, sculpture,etc.)
Bottom line: give us Toys'r'us priced REDs