A Cheap Folksinger's Trick

I think I know what Ken is talking about, even if he doesn't. What he is searching for is validation through his art. It's not about money but, if somebody is willing to pay money for a painting, it must be good, right? Well, not necessarily, all that proves is that one person likes it, and he might not know what he's talking about either. I'm inclined to say that it's more important to please yourself than it is to please others, but there must be exceptions to that.

I don't remember where I learned this, but I call it my cheap folksinger's trick. If you want somebody to like your song, put them in it. People love to hear songs about themselves. The pros carry it to another level, they try to give their songs universal appeal, which means that everybody who hears the song gets the impression that it was written specifically for them. I'm not sure how this would apply to painting, unless you wanted to get into portraits or caricatures. There's more to it than that, though. If you paint what you like, then you're only painting for yourself. Nothing wrong with that, but it might be more fun to paint for a wider audience. If you paint what other people like, it's kind of like you're selling out. The ideal would be, if you painted what you liked and other people liked it too. The trick must be to paint in such a way that others would be persuaded to your way of looking at the world. When other people do it to you, it's called brainwashing but, when you do it to other people, you are enlightening them for their own good.

We have something like the British ASBO, it's called "disorderly conduct". I don't think many people are prosecuted for it, it's just an excuse to take them out of circulation for awhile before they hurt themselves, they hurt somebody else, or somebody else hurts them. That's probably why those armed demonstrators agreed to put their guns away when asked to do so by the police. Carrying a loaded firearm in a crowded, emotionally charged environment may be legal, but it also may be dangerous. To insist on exercising their right to bear arms at the expense of public safety would be irresponsible, and no law abiding gun toting citizen would want anybody to think that they were irresponsible.

Public transportation is fine for the big cities, but there aren't enough people around here to make it worthwhile. We have some kind of dial-a-ride shuttle bus service, but I don't know how much use it gets. It must be subsidized by the state or federal government, and I suppose it fills a need, but most people would rather drive their own cars if they are able.