Gina’s take on pursuing art as a necessity for survival is truly an interesting one. However, I feel that even though it is admirable to have a passion so strong that it comes before any and all material wealth, it is somewhat hyperbole. I believe that it is certainly possible to have such a strong drive to create art, that physical suffering and lack of material comforts pale in comparison, I feel it may be overstated, and overdramatized at the very least. Gina also has a very interesting take on the semester-long discussion on the mixing of money and art. She feels that there is nothing wrong with artists being well compensated for their work, since it gives them the freedom to pursue what they want to do, instead of what will make money. This may be tangential, but this take reminds me of the way democracy developed, regarding universal salary for head of states, to insure that governments are truly meritocracy, and politicians would vote based on personal values, as opposed to aristocracies, since it would make it more difficult for politicians to be bought out by interested parties. I am much more sympathetic to this view on money and art, as opposed to the idea that the mere existence of money in a transactional arrangement for a piece of art, inherently corrupts the piece and its message.