Ok so I've been out long enough, I miss you blog. Now that I'm a graduate and have taken my little break, I've been thinking a lot lately about what kind of art to do. I'm sure every artist has this dilemma. Make great art with no holds barred, or, make something affordable to make some money!
I've read a few articles on the thought of artists "selling out." According to the consensus most artists in the biz agree that making art for money is pretty much the goal of every artist, to live off of doing what you love. But where is the line exactly between that, and making something, just because you can, for a quick buck, which has nothing to do with you. Personally I believe this is a relative non issue with "no name" artists. You have to do what you can to make a name for yourself, just as long as you know what you're doing.
I've been thinking a lot also about what to paint in general. Experts say an artist should have a voice, an artist should have a style. Over the years I've met and have had the honor of befriending many great artists with styles so unique I could always pick out their works on the wall. I haven't always thought of my own work that way. I'm interested in so many styles and see the benefits and fun of trying them all. But when it comes to making yourself known, potential clients should be able to recognize you, thus insuring recognition with the world at large.
Maybe its ok to do all experimentation on your own, but are we really limited to what others recognize as our style? I've always thought the message, purpose, or content of a work should dictate what it looks like, regardless of whether its recognizable as mine, I'd rather the work be good, and speak on its own. One comforting thought in all this seems to be that even when I try new styles or apply new techniques, I've always been told the work still looks like me. Hmm.