>>3302462your personal definition of the word is irrelevant. or are you telling me that Warhol (or literally any other figure) wasn't an "artist" until he sold his first piece? what about all the young people out there now, studying/making art?
>However, it is important to have something lest any achievement be rendered moot.so if your photos have been exposed in a gallery, but you haven't been paid, it's not art (or worth anything?) that seems to be what
>>3302438 was implying. also, define ''achievement''?
is it really that unimaginable to you that people might want to engage in time-consuming activities in order to create something for their own pleasure?
