Both Stephen and Michael had differing viewpoints on several key points about the production and meaning of art that made for interesting ideas and discussions. For starters, I really like Stephen’s insistence in pursuing a viable and lucrative side job in order to be able to fund his art. This is in opposition to the running theme of this course, as well as heavily romanticized idea of the starving artist that Rent tries to portray. I believe that this gives the artist much more freedom to create art that they truly want to make, instead of being forced to create art tailored to those with money. I have a friend who is a full time student, pursuing art as a hobby and also as a side job. As such she generally takes commission for her work, and only ever really creates what other people want to see. Combined with the fact that she is a full time student, she rarely has time for genuine artistic expression.

One area in which I agree more with Michael is the idea of what constitutes art. Stephen believes in the idea that art is conceived not when the piece is complete, but when the first pair of eyes is laid on it. Michael is more liberal with the idea, instead making the point that art doesn’t need an audience for it to be considered art. I very much agree with this, since I don’t buy that it is imperative for art to be about some sort of communication between an artist and an audience. Sure, art could be a means of expressing some sort of idea or emotion, and I could see art as having even more worth if it can successfully communicate with an audience. But this is far too strict. I see nothing wrong with someone pursuing some sort of art as a hobby and never showing anyone their work. If the act of simply creating art can bring them fulfillment, who are we to criticize them?