[Steven Sweeney]

[It was thoughtfully brought to my attention that these comments, as posted in their original form, could be interpreted to mean that I think money equals quality and that lack of financial reward indicates some deficit in the quality of the work. I'm modifying the post to, I hope, make it clear that that was not my intent.]

Are there people here who are embarrassed to cash the checks they receive for commissioned work? Does it compromise your artistic integrity to be happy to be paid -- and even to consider your client's or collectors' or audiences' wishes as you work?

I'm working, perhaps not always as diligently as possible, to acquire a level of competence in realistic representational art that satisfies me and that, at the same time, sufficiently intrigues or engages a viewer to trade for it a negotiable instrument of substantial face value, or other mutually acceptable barter. We can get a little precious about our "calling" sometimes, but we're not working in a social or commercial vacuum here. What profession or vocation doesn't have excellent practitioners who struggle, and street-savvy "technicians", if you will, who thrive? I'm not suggesting that a boat load of money proves competence, but there's a kind of Mobius logic turning back on itself, isn't there, to say that an "incompetent" artist has made a boatload of money? ("Yeah, look at that Pablo, he's so godawful that he's actually making a living at this, can you believe it, mes amis?") I'm not particularly enamored of the ubiquitous Thomas Kinkade works (though a lot of my acquaintances DO like them), but I don't begrudge him one bit the wealth he's acquired as a reward for his efforts. And if a "competent" artist remains impecunious, well, come on now: what's that about? The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune? Sometimes, perhaps, he's too self-absorbed, too self-indulgent, or too lazy to get out and hustle up some business. "I want the world to discover ME." And other times -- and likely this is much more often the case -- he works his fingers raw, doing everything "right", but disappointment dogs his every effort -- the economy sours, a gallery fails, there's no money for frames, the mortgage company sends a foreclosure notice.

A late starter, I'm not a great painter and probably never will be, in the time I have left to hone the skills, but I'm a pretty competent painter and I can sell my work. And I'm puzzled that some of my past instructors, who were better painters twenty years ago -- inspirationally and technically -- than I ever will be, can't seem to make a go of it. People must not be buying their work because people don't like it, right? Are these artists, then, incompetent? Hardly. Competent but not understood? An annoyingly self-indulgent rationalization. I've read about those driven souls who "can't not paint" (and I hear there's medication for that now), but the Mozarts (who, I suppose, was one who just couldn't stop hummin doz tunes) and Van Goghs notwithstanding, I don't detect any particular professional honour in a pauper's grave, nor any particular personal shame in sharing one's unique talents with a paying public -- even one that may not be as discerning as curators or docents or folks like us, lucky enough to be engaged in this ****ably [SOG's asterisks, not mine] blessed pursuit.

Do your very best work all the time and strive ever to advance. If you'd like to sell the work, put it out there, do the legwork, and hope for the best. Good luck.

Is there heresy or blasphemy in such a pedestrian plan? Is the difference between portraits and portraiture, as one critic has divided it, really the difference between lightning and a lightning bug?

Steven