For me, that was a very meaningful experience. We often hear things like 'be in the moment' or 'learn from experience', etc. but this was more than that for me. It explained the difference between the personal experience of art and the public artifact of art. At times they coincide, but many times they are quite separate events. I may have a total 'artgasm' experience while creating something, but the final artifact may not move anyone else. One the other hand, an artifact may be created with a rote hand and is beloved by the masses.
This is why there is both a huge universe of that which we call art, and why art is undefinable. Is it the making or the made. Is it enough for it to be personal growth, or must it be communicative? Those answers probably differ as much as the art created by each artist. That is the wonderment of it all. That is the angst of it all. That is the core of it all.
For me (and I do mean "for me" - not "how it should be"), it is the experience. I have never made art with a conscience effort to change the world, or even one single mind. I have no want to be validated through gallery sales or fame. It is enough to feel the well up of the creative force and the visceral relief when it escapes from me. Whether it is then enjoyed by others is both a bonus and a wonderment, but never a necessity.
The above assertion may seem either contradictory, or a bit of downright hypocrisy, coming from someone who has made their living based on their creative endeavors for almost four decades, so tomorrow I will address that. Stay tuned!
If you are really into history, click here for blog posts prior to 2014 !