The author is accusing the artists of being inconsistent, claiming that they give lip service to the idea that an artist must suffer, but that they then live in material comfort - so they do not themselves suffer. Only (2) completes the paragraph in a way so that the inconsistency comes out. (1) and (4) can be dismissed because the autor is attacking artists, not connoisseurs or purchasers of art, nor critics of art. (3) is inadequate for it does not reveal the inconsistency. The author apparently allows that these people are, after a fashion, artists, but objects to their claiming that it is necessary to suffer while they do not themselves suffer. (5) is the second best answer, but it fails, too. The difficulty with (5) is that the author's point is that there is a contradiction between the actions and the words of artists: They claim to suffer but they do not. But the claimed suffering goes beyond matters of eating and has to do with deprivation generally.