Identity as an artist

"Of course there's a fish in a tree." In-progress shot.

I’ve been thinking today about these next steps I’m taking and how excited I am. And there’s a niggle of doubt and a not-so-nice voice in my head that says:

“You’re not a REAL artist because you get your supplies from Michael’s.”

And in examination, if I look at that thought, obviously, it’s not true. So I can dismiss it, easily. How funny that I've made an "Anything is possible" painting, and how great is it that I'm having these thoughts right now. A Great reminder :)

These thoughts bring up a good topic. What makes an artist?

Do you have to get your supplies from an art store or wholesale?

Do you have to work solely in oil (that’s another thought I’ve had — you’re not an artist because you work in paper and acrylics.)?

Are you an artist only when someone else deems you an artist?

Do you have to starve to consider yourself an artist?

Does starvation make a better artist than say someone with a full-time job creating art as a side thing?

What’s the problem with not starving? With providing for yourself while you pursue art?

I understand that some people believe that starvation or lack makes the art better, or that historically those who pursued art were focused on that and couldn’t have “day jobs.”

I don’t want to starve for my art or my writing. I want to play and be free to play, without worrying about where my next meal will come from. This place of security is from where I create best. If I have worries and stresses, it shows itself in my creative process being stifled. As in, I don’t create. I don’t have that fire or urge to play with paint and canvas.

And I can call myself an artist because I create things that I find beautiful. The money, exposure, whatever is secondary to me.

As if in response to my decision to be a part of Oak Groove, Michael’s is having a sale on canvases. 50% off, and some are 60%. Yay!