this painting, the one above the tv in the living room, its really the only one anyone ever sees in real life. people compliment it, but is it because they really like it? or because its the only piece of art that is available to look at? in all honesty i didn't spend much time thinking about it, i mean, it was fun, definitely an artistic expression, but not necessarily skillful.

i'm really struggling lately with the definition of art and whether my work fits into it.

No real answers.

i recently came upon the realization that i do not like talking about my art work. well, let me explain here. i guess the part i really have trouble with is the explanation of my work. "why did you make this?" that sort of thing. i feel like explaining my whole thought process on a piece is WAY too exhausting and basically pointless. Take it for what you see, not what i see. its a lot more interesting that way.

Most of the time nothing turns out the way i picture it anyway, does that make me a failure as an artist? am i not a real artist because sometimes little effort goes into a piece that is successful?

of course i am not trying to sound pretentious - and of course i'm sure i do, because when anyone tries to talk about art in such a way they sound pretentious.

but i'm an artist and thats my job, right?

art is constant self discovery, a piece is almost like showing the viewer a piece of your insides. but sometimes the message you're trying to convey doesnt mean the same thing to everyone looking.

i feel like i sound like a bunch of cliches.

do i have the right to talk about art in a way that makes it seem like i'm involved in the scene? i can't tell. i dont feel like i've earned it yet though.