Let me start off by saying that my own opinion of what art is only applies to me. It seems pretty pointless for me to attempt to define this ridiculously broad and abstract phenomenon that we call “art” and then force my own opinion onto the rest of the art world. This is pointless because there are too many opinions out there! Every artist has a different opinion on the matter, and they are all right. But of course, I would love to share my opinion. My own art is something that I use to physically record an image or concept from my mind as best as possible, that couldn’t be represented in words. Sometimes it’s been inspired from something, sometimes it’s just a subconscious recording of the abstract, other-worldly images that are constantly floating around in my brain (example of an artist who i consider to be abstract/awesome: http://www.aleksrdest.com/RDEST_08.html). Does this mean that it doesn’t have a message? No… of course not. But personally, this message isn’t always explainable through words. I feel like I’m constantly trying to draw the same thing, but it comes out in different ways. Does that make sense? No… of course not. But that’s why I’m an artist, not a writer. So should all art always be in response to something? This is the question from the reading that really stuck with me. “Because much of the art being made today focuses on social problems rather than on ‘self-expression,’ the broader context of political, social and environmental life is often the artist’s work arena, rather than the more traditional withdrawal behind closed doors in the studio.” (page 31) My idea here is this: just because I’m not commenting on some physical, worldly thing, that still means I can be an artist. I don’t think art always has to ask a question. I think it’s anything that is expressive of our inner self. That’s what I’m really trying to get at here: I make art for myself. I do it for the process mostly. It’s therapeutic to represent emotions in a visual way. Most of the time I have an easier time expressing how I feel visually rather than through speech. I’m interested in the abstract, the things that words can’t describe. Again, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t hold meaning. But honestly, the meaning of the image is almost always revealed to me after I start. So since I do my art only for myself, does that mean that it’s selfish? Yes, probably. But I can’t help it! It’s just how my brain works. So is it morally okay to be an artist? This was a question that was brought up in the lecture multiple times. The answer is yes, but it’s definitely still selfish. At least for me. Because I’m not really trying to save the world or convey some sort of moral truth to anyone, I’m just doing the only thing I know how to do: create an image. If that’s what art is, then great. If not, too bad for me because I’m an art major…?