Art: The Be-All and End-All for Every True Artist

What makes a person an artist, or something art, has nothing to do with awards, sales, ego, etc. 

Of course, art might bring the artist accolades, and the luckiest might even be able to make a living off of their art, but there are many artists producing art who don't get recognized, and don't make money off of their art, but they continue producing it anyway. 

For me, that's what makes a person an artist and what they do art: an artist will make their art no matter the outcome. Art is a product of self expression and passion, not greed and egotism. An artist produces art for the love of art, first and foremost. There might be other factors involved, as well, but those are secondary to the art itself.

I am not going to mention any names, because I don't want to promote those individuals more than others already have, since, I am guessing, that is why this person did what he/she did: for him/her, it's all about staying in the spotlight and making money. 

Maybe this person and the people he/she was promoting are artists. I don't know. I believe it depends on their motivation as to whether that is true or not. It seems like these people are more interested in the spectacle than they are in just producing the product. It seems like their images, and the benefits they receive from maintaining those images, come first.

If their interest was in making art, then I would like to think it would be more evident that they were not just trying to maintain their wealth and fame. After all, you shouldn't have to proclaim yourself an artist. It is something you earn, and as much as you want people to consider you it, it doesn't mean that you are or will ever be considered one.

That being said, I believe my definition of an artist, as someone who produces art for the love of producing art, is fairly universal. If you truly are an artist, people will recognize it. People will see your genuine love of making your art, and you will not have to go around proclaiming yourself an artist in order to be labeled as such.

The person this person was protesting could also be considered an artist, and, indeed, is considered one, and has been considered one, by many. I don't know that this person's status as an artist has ever been questioned, especially when you look at his/her past work, and his/her level of involvement in producing the "art" itself.

This person also tends to stay out of the spotlight (as far as I am aware, anyways), and he/she has always pushed boundaries and made decisions that seem to go beyond a desire to be famous or to maintain a level of fame since what he/she has produced has never really fallen in with what is popular in the moment, necessarily. It seems to be more about the art itself and not the artist.

When it comes down to it, of all of these individuals, who would most likely continue making "art" if the fame, money, and recognition were all taken away? I can't answer that--only they can--but those who truly would are the artists.

Choosing A Choice

While it is entirely arbitrary to most people, my gut instinct is telling me that, if I am going to take one version of Out in the Garage off-sale, it is going to be the second edition. While that might seem counter-intuitive, I do have what I feel is solid reasoning to support why I would do this, which I guess makes it more than just gut instinct, but, hey, you know, whatever... It really all comes down to the fact that I never should have written the second edition in the first place. I should have just stood behind the first edition and not let what other people think bother me, since there are plenty of people who read it and liked it. While it might not conform to contemporary ideals, that is not necessarily a bad thing, and I have spent much more time reading and studying literature that was written well before I was born, and my biggest influences as a writer were either well dead or quite old when I was born. I studied literature, I didn't go through an MFA program, and, as of now, I don't intend to. Not that there anything wrong with getting an MFA, it is just not my choice. I believe, and have been taught, even by people with MFAs, that the best way to learn how to write is to study how writers you like do it, and then do it, and do it, and do it. So that is what I am doing. When I started writing Out in the Garage, I didn't know what I was doing (and some would argue that I still don't, but hey, whatever, you can't please everybody), and, over the course of writing, editing, rewriting, and editing, over and over again, I, sort of, developed my artistic vision for it, which I then compromised when I decided to rewrite and edit and make the changes that I did to get the second edition. While yes, in theory, the changes were designed to make it more marketable, it was really just stupid and weak on my part. The first edition, for all its faults, is genuine. When I finished it, it felt finished. I just lack the self-confidence to not continuously second guess myself, which I am trying to change. Anyways, I like the first edition, and if I have to choose one (which I don't, really), it is the one that I am going to choose.