Jobs plus art. When I think of an artist, I usually think of some who does it for a living. But a few minutes in, Stephen was talking about how he had to have a job and do art. The concept is far from new, but I don’t know. Something about it this time made me think a bit harder about it. I think of the ‘poor artist’ senario, how artists only live off their work and struggle to put food on the table. But I liked how he talks about finding a job where he can incorporate his art. I feel like a lot of artists today keep their job and art separate (of course other than when art is the job). Maybe because there’s little opportunity? Or maybe they prefer it this way? I’m  not talented enough to be an artist, and I probably won’t find myself in their shoes, and I don’t know if my point is coming across here, but I just feel like it would be inspiring to see art shine through jobs that don’t really require it.

Do the rich get to be art critics. Again, I’ve never been in an artists shoes, but LoPorto brings up a good point about how ‘people with money in their pocket’ sometimes try and tell the artist what should change in their own art. You could hear in his voice he couldn’t stand it when he experienced that, and rightfully so. But it made me think of all the times I did that. When I thought to myself ‘the artist should’ve done this?’ or ‘why would the artist even do that?’. But I guess I don’t know the artist, their feelings, or the way of thinking, so it kind of made me reflect: I often judge a book by its cover. Going into that day’s class, I wasn’t expecting to expose something about myself, but here we are.

And as for if art is only art when it’s shared… I disagree. I think one of our guests said this, but I think if you elicit some response through some form of expression, it can be considered art, even if the response comes from the artist themself. In other words, I think someone can make art for themself.