User blog comment:Angel Emfrbl/Some feed back/@comment-26078132-20151125022546

Posting a new comment, but going to start by saying that I strongly agree with what Ren said; whether you should keep going or not should be entirely and only dependent on yourself and your desires to continue producing art. Whether you should continue trying to make a living off of it should require more thought in terms of is it likely to turn around at some point and start pulling in actual income for you, or is the market in your area (content-wise and geographically) not so hot and not likely to pick up any time soon. If you decide to stop because it's not likely to make a living for you, then you would of course need to make sure you have planned out what to do next, whether that is college/vocational training (continuing or new) or a particular type of job you're going to aim for, etc.

I teach music, both inside and outside of schools, and am a regular performer, both in classical and more pop/rock oriented genres. One thing I always strive to teach my students, even if I only have them for one day, is that it is important to love making music, and love the music that they are making; otherwise, it is just a waste of energy. They may not be completely enamored with every single piece they are working on, but what I am trying to convey to them and that they are typically able to understand is that it is up to them to make sure that their energy is not wasted, and to make that music in a way that they can love it. Even if they don't like a piece, they can still put their all into it and make a difference in it through that. With visual art, it should be the same way; even if the artist doesn't love how a piece turns out, or how it feels working on it, they should still put their all into it, make sure that energy isn't wasted, and make something about it sparkle, whether that is in the finished product or during the production of it. With that as part of my teaching and performance philosophy, I think you should never quit making art for your own sake, unless it is absolutely not good for you anymore, and is just draining your energy wastefully. Only you, the artist, can know what it is doing for you, though.

As for the comments here providing crit points on your DA works- saying you don't want critique isn't going to stop anyone from doing that anyways. While preparing for major recitals during college, I would often pull a classmate into the practice room and run a piece for them. My goal wasn't necessarily for them to analyze and critique my playing, but just to have the experience of playing it without being the only person hearing it. They would offer critique whether I asked for it or not, and it was always helpful; a lot of it, especially from those who were not also pianists, were things I was already aware of. That was still helpful, though, in that it confirmed that those things I was aware of in my own playing were noticeable to other listeners, too, making those points even more important to focus on. Again, with visual art, same thing- when a viewer states something they perceive and suggests a way to improve it or an alternate way to manipulate it, it's probably not because they are trying to teach you or implying you're not aware of it, but it is simply very noticeable to them, especially if they have some amount of training and know the vocabulary to correctly describe it, and they are stating it because it is an obvious thing to them, the viewer. With that, having a degree and years of experience does not automatically imply possession of knowledge or a million dollar final product. Of course, we'd all like to think that all that money we've spent towards those degrees will actually get us somewhere...but that's a rage discussion for another time. Many of my classmates in college, who also graduated with the intention of being school music teachers, really should not be unless they are able to change and improve quite a bit. They were, quite frankly, awful musicians, and their teaching demonstrations were always lacking. Degree, and some experience, but still an awful product which would not land them work. In some of the schools I teach in, students complain incessantly about teachers who are just unbearable to sit through class with. Degree, experience, awful final product...and somehow still getting work. (Ugh, tenure at its finest...) I digress, though. It's not just with visual and performing arts- in any field, it's not enough to have the certifications and age/experience alone to be producing a truly valuable level of work; while both of those certainly help quite a bit and in some areas are necessary, there's also just the part of continually working and changing to improve. It gets exceptionally challenging when it feels like 'but I've been working so hard, it's not getting any better, how much more to I have to improve for it to be good enough...', and I know no solution to that. It's a battle as a teaching and performing musician which I am constantly fighting, trying to impress the rest of the world and myself. It is never going to become good enough, whatever good enough is, if you give up, though, in any sense of the phrase "give up."

I'm sure a lot of this sounds like...not common sense, but "yeah, I know." It all is perfectly valid and reasonable to consider, though, especially in regards to continuing to make art for enjoyment. It is impossible to become a truly successful artist, visual or performing, without being able to accept at face value (and reject in one's own head if needed, but without speaking it) critique on one's work, whether or not it was requested.