Expressing
joy or pain unconsciously while working, is different than
expressing the emotions of joy or pain with awareness.
There is no question that art may be therapeutic for the artist and
sometimes for the viewer as well. But what is medicinal for the
artist, may not be healthy for the viewer.
A certain objectivity that allows for an artist to continue in the
same mood until a painting is finished, is necessary. If an artist's
moods change over a period of time and he allows them to influence
his work, then many confusing elements will be present in the work
at the same time.
At other times a more direct expression of emotions may be desired.
Perhaps neither is right or wrong. In the first case the subject,
involving recalled feelings, is as much a dictator as the artist,
and demands certain treatment. In the second case, the artist
chooses the subject that suits his inclination, and deals with his
feelings at the time.
Is it not a challenge for the musician to be able to return to a
particular mood when he sings a specific song? But if he is singing
or composing to ease his sorrow, or for fun of it, is it necessary
that others hear it right away? Should he not save it, recall it
over and over, until he is sure that it is something that could, or
should be, shared?
An artist is well suited for barter. That way a monetary value does
not have to be put on his art. It can be regarded as `something I
do' for `something you do', both necessary at the time, and of equal
importance.
