I have been consistent in entering artist opportunities for solo shows but I have been mostly rejected. Does that mean my work is not worthy or only a reflection of a myriad of other factors? My work is not particularly political so I suspect that without a relevance to today’s issues, my work is likely to be seen as “not significant”. I do believe that my work has the
quality and vision necessary to be considered fine art and yet acceptances are few and far between. I do remind myself that opportunities are limited and if, for example, I was going out to dinner and the choice was between Italian food and Chinese food, the choosing of Chinese food doesn’t mean that the Italian food was inferior. The choice was merely a preference and not a critique. So I keep seeking opportunities.
Still, a rejection is a rejection. Recognition is always a welcome thing and yet is this necessary to a career as an artist? Does praise make my art any better or reaffirm my creative direction? Indeed, having work that is popular is not a sign of quality, only a sign of what is popular. It seems that “new” art is frequently rejected as new, by definition, is not familiar. Most new art, like abstract art, was greeted with much distain. Even the Impressionists were widely criticized.
So then what is the point?
I need to create. I have a clear vision. I am pleased with the body of work that I have created. And I have a body of work that is greatly satisfying.
What more could I ask for?