Balancing Act: Art for Self and Others

I've often engaged in the ongoing debate about whether art should be created primarily for personal fulfillment or for the enjoyment of others. On one hand, we create art for ourselves because it's a means of self-expression and a fulfilling endeavor. Yet, once our creation is complete, it takes on a life of its own, becoming the emotional property of those who experience it.

So, which is it? How can art simultaneously serve our personal needs and be appreciated by others?

Actually, I retract that question. It's quite evident (from my earlier commentary) that art can exist in both realms, serving both the creator and the audience. It's a symbiotic relationship, a dance between the maker and the admirer. My revised question addresses the balance between these two aspects. Where do we draw the line, and what is the ideal equilibrium?

As with all things creative, the answer largely depends on the context. If I create a piece of art solely for my own satisfaction, indulging every personal whim without considering others' enjoyment, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, I must be prepared for the consequences, such as the potential lack of commercial success, although there's always a slim chance it could resonate with a broader audience.

Conversely, if I create something tailored entirely to an audience's preferences, I might increase my chances of mass appeal. Yet, I run the risk of the artwork not being personally fulfilling unless my sole source of fulfillment stems from sales figures. Some individuals find their satisfaction in this, and that's perfectly valid.

There's a definite divide in any creative project, and where we place it is a personal choice. It could be balanced in the middle or lean toward one side, but as long as we're aware of the implications of that decision, it can fall anywhere we desire. Even though it's not always an easy decision, when are decisions ever easy in the world of art creation?