Lovely!

I try to create art for its own sake, but sharing it with others often helps me with my work and occasionally gives them some fresh insight.

those were my watching eyes.

--
the pearl is the oyster's autobiography.

Hmm, scary!

--
unbeingdead isn't beingalive

It's still art even if no one else sees it....but somehow it has more meaning when shared. I don't know. Think of a pretty cat, sunning in the window. You look at it's beauty, thinking how you'd like to run your fingers through it's warm fur. When you do, the cat purrs and arches against your hand and you feel the connection with another living animal. That's how I feel when others let me know I have touched them with my artwork (or praise or encouragement in any aspect of life). Somehow it is enough to execute the work, but it comes to life with the sharing.

Susan

--
Silent gratitude isn’t much good to anyone.

- Gladys Browyn Stern

What a nice thought, thank you! I do feel like a purring cat every time somebody gets something out of what I've written. At the same time, the fact that people might see it and judge it keeps me from writing. It's a paradox....

--
unbeingdead isn't beingalive .... e.e. cummings

Jeez, don't let what someone else "might" think stop you from writing. Just write. Do you have a journal that is just for you where you can write whatever you want and not think about grammer and technicalities? That might loosen you up for writing that will be read by others. If your writing is going to be honest, it has to be what you think that really matters anyway.

--
Silent gratitude isn’t much good to anyone.

- Gladys Browyn Stern

Can art be complete in itself?

Yes and no, by the act of creation art is complete in its self, but art must also be have a viewer or listener to be complete as well. It is based on dependant origination, like the trees give bodily form to the wind. So in the act of creation it exists but also within the viewer viewing it. So the question is if the art is seen does that give it existance? The answer to this is also yes. Because in having been seen it is also complete. So it is and it is not. With out each it exists and it does not. But to truely understand art is to not attempt to understand it or the nature of its existance or completeness. I know that is not the answer you are looking for but perhaps it sheds light on how I view the whole thing.

--
"Walk into splintered sunlight, inch your way through dead dreams to another land."

-Phil Lesh of the Grateful Dead

You told me this would blow my mind and you're right! <3. You have a very holistic idea of what art is; I think I understand what you mean but it's hard for me to quite grasp (which is part of the point, isn't it?). I think I'll let this stew awhile, we should talk about it later though

I love your Grateful Dead quote btw.

--
unbeingdead isn't beingalive .... e.e. cummings

Well, art always has at least one viewer - you. I'm reluctant to divorce the idea of art from viewers, because what is art supposed to do? Communicate a message or an emotion? Be beautiful? Be provacative?

It seems like whatever a piece of art is supposed to "do" requires a "reader." If I build a can opener, but then I keep it in a drawer and never use it to open a single can, is it really a can opener?

--
If an advisor says to me "My liege, he is but one man. What can one man possibly do?", I will reply "This." and kill the advisor.