Sometimes I'm sad that I've got myself entangled in the visual part of "art". Lately I've had the feeling that I could have been a good musician or a writer if someone pushed me into those waters on time. It seems to me that the visual artists get the least amount of "reward" for their work. I mean, if you make a song (and let's assume it's relatively good), there's going to be a certain amount of people that will listen to, luckily more than once. If you're a writer than you know that people will spend a certain amount of time on your thoughts, which seems the biggest reward of all (because you can listen to a song not minding the lyrics). But if you're a visual artist you can be lucky if people spend 0,1 second on the piece you have created. And your mood, thoughts and ideas will rarely be noticed.

But that way of looking at things isn't something that should be accepted as a definition of the said "reward". It seemed to me that this is what would make some people ..satisfied.

Maybe it's the process of making the piece that fills the "artist's" soul..
But is it, and do we create just for the sake of creating? (Of course, I'm not talking about those who make money with it.)

L' art pour l' art?