Yeah I think it's very much like that. I saw a video with AT where he was talking about hosting a dinner party and he had loads of 'beautiful women' and probably, i dunno, serious entrepreneurial men as guests - and he didn't enjoy it at all cos as the prime alpha of the group or whatever the fuck he calls himself, his job was not to have pleasure, but, rather he had to organise it all and make sure their lobster thermidor was served perfectly to photograph for Instagram (er I mean eat) and make sure the ladeez were all comfortable, plus he needed to keep an eye on his investment portfolio (at a dinner party!) etc etc
I just don't get that at all - but all the comments under the vid were saying "quite right, the king is responsible for all of his subjects and he shouldn't be distracted by foolish bagatelle such as happiness".
I do think that there can be a thing where the kind of people driven to succeed in some fields such as - Bill Gates or Zuckerberg etc - just don't really enjoy the things that most of us do, which is part of the reason that when they make their first billion they are driven to try and make more instead of enjoying that - and I feel that this maybe is related to the way that people such as, say, Tony Blair who are attracted by power are the very last people who should be given any power.
But to my mind the Tate thing is not like this, it feels performative and fake. I think they are pretending to be above pleasure cos they think it makes them look serious.
