John Robertson, who has raised some uneasy questions about what it means to be an artist today. I really like his assemblages and Van Gogh-type pieces, and he does some nice, large portraits. He went on television recently promoting his willingness to sell his bohemian or artistic lifestyle for $250,000. I realize it's probably a stunt, or a performance piece, to get publicity for his art, but it brings up questions about what exactly an artist will do in order to make a buck. Can the soul, the artistic soul, be sold for so much cash? If it can be sold, then doesn't that make the artist soulless and, therefore, not an artist. Isn't art a measure of soul? I suppose each painting contains the artist's soul and each time we offer something up for sale, the question becomes "how much will we sell that piece of soul for?" It's something I've been vaguely wondering about as I labor over blogs, websites, Etsy sites, all kinds of sites in order to make a name, make a buck, no matter how small, no matter how elusive. And I can see it's a very competitive, dog eat dog, web world out there which doesn't seem particularly conducive to someone trying to develop their art. It's hard to focus with so many questions and fruitless mind exercises. And along with that, another fruitless painting (something about that shape in the middle is bugging me and I have to do something about it--but what?) I've got a number of semi-completed paintings which are going nowhere fast. I guess they must be a true reflection of this artist!