I was in LA at The Getty yesterday. It's a free museum with incredible architecture that showcases artworks dating as far back as BCE.
I was staring at a Baroque portrait of a French duke. I thought to myself: this is what they did before photos were invented.
That's what I do.
As a freelancer, I've always considered myself a tradesperson. People give me money to make things — and I don't much care what we make. I don't get emotional about revisions, as long as I'm paid on time (that's rare).
I'll admit, I've always looked down on the eccentric artist types who claim some visionary need to self-express. "You just don't understand me, bro. I make art. I'm not a sellout for corporations."
My controversial view is that the most renowned fine artists of all time were simply making art for the rich. They still do. You won't find many Jeff Koons originals on sale.
Artists now have to battle the algorithm. They need to curate work that can go viral. It confines the artist to trends. It constrains creativity. It makes me wonder: is art as self-expression just an illusion?
Since becoming a dad, I've spent lots of time reading books to my kids. All of them have pictures. My daughter has taken up drawing some of these characters. She draws a lot. I drew a lot at that age.
I don't know why it's important to us, but we both have that thing.
I realize now that regardless of any intended meaning, art is still really fun to do. I still like doing it. I like sharing it. It's fun to get better.
I don't know if it's some divine expression. But what I have with my daughter is important.
And maybe that's art.