Another neurotic but ultimately sort of essential question I’ve been asking myself…
Should I publish my work?
The underlying question is this: What is it for?
If the work exists to express the inexpressible, to connect with another person and show them how you feel… then you must publish your work! Without it, there is no point.
If the work is just within - as a way for you to explore some idea, or practice some technical skill… I don’t know.
I could write plenty on the nuances of this decision, but I won’t. Because I realize now that the premise is wrong.
If my art has just been within, and that’s all I desire from it, then why would I have any reason to publish it?
The question now becomes this: Is the act of keeping something within, in art or otherwise, sort of… unhygienic?
How should I put this… It’s like - you know when there’s an outcast from a group, someone who doesn’t fit in, and keeps to themselves? Most of the time, that person’s afraid. They don’t have a good reason not to hang out with the rest, they just aren’t willing to be vulnerable, to share their feelings with others, that sort of thing.
Every once in a while, there’s someone who’s actually an outcast with good reason. That’s the “person who’s outgrown their little town” or something likewise. That’s cool, I understand. But for the most part, the outcast tends to be missing something.
I wonder if my art is like that. I can make all the claims I want about what I think it’s for, but in the Adlerian sense, maybe all those reasons are invented.
I’m free. Art can be for whatever I want it to be.
I can use art. I can use it to connect with others, to explore an idea, to conquer a fear, to show someone something interesting. And my reasoning for that can be whatever I want it to be as well.
In sum, I should make a decision about what art means to me, and be earnest about it, and stick with it.
All works of art have an audience. Nothing is made for no one.
Some art is made for oneself. That is perhaps the most crucial audience of all!