I have been hunting for a handyman in Poland (I have been living and working in this region for three years now) and was wondering if u can suggest something. A while back I came across a firm called Hydraulik-Lodz.pl that is located where I stay - in Lodz. Have you heard of them? You will be able to take a look at their web page here: [url=http://uslugi-hydrauliczne-lodz.pl/]ogrzewanie podlogowe lodz[/url]

The problem I am fighting with is a broken pipe beneath the kitchen sink.

What is your opinion about those dudes?

Take care

Anyway - I’ll heartily agree with your statement about doing what is best for you and your career…and yes, that might be different from what someone else does. I also find it interesting and enlightening to hear that you have talked with artists who do repeat themselves, yet feel they are painting for themselves (not necessarily just for sales).

Again, it’s a good reminder to me of my own assumptions. I get bored very easily, so restlessness in subject and style is part of my journey - but certainly not necessarily everyone’s…I have to remember not everyone has such a low boredom threshold.

As I read other’s comments, I’m really starting to think there’s not a right or wrong answer. It totally depends on each artist’s individual situation. I guess my previous comments came mostly from hearing what other artists have mentioned about this topic. I’m still early in my career and my thought process may change over time.

There are plenty of artists, like Richard Schmid, that have very successful careers and aren’t tied to a specific subject matter. They are passionate about painting, and it doesn’t really matter what they’re painting. There are also many artists who have stuck to a specific subject matter (like Carl Rungius with wildlife), probably because they are as passionate about the subject as they are about painting, but their work has still grown and changed over time.

If an artist’s work remains similar from year to year, are we to assume they are no longer painting for themselves? Who’s to say they haven’t found what fulfills their personal needs and are just continuing to do that? Is constant growth and change required for self-fulfillment? I mention this because I know artists that have been accused of painting the same subjects in the same style repeatedly just for sales. But, having discussed their work thoroughly with them, I know they are very much painting for themselves.

I’m going to do what I feel is best for me and my career, but that could be very different from what someone else does.

How in the world did we ever get to the point where people who aren’t “us” somehow get to dictate what we do and how we do it? If they know so darn much, they can bloody well pick up a brush and have at it. I know, but what do I really think.

Anyway…

Something Kelly said in her comment above struck me: about artists having perhaps a bit of an obligation to their collectors, later in their careers, to remain consistent. I don’t think I agree with that. It’s my personal duty to do my best to continue growing in my vision and how I express that. Take Picasso: his early paintings were very realist, then he birthed Cubism, then even later he messed about with drawings and sculpture that were definitely not Cubist. (NOT to say that I can compare myself to Picasso!).

In the end, buyers sense which ones were painted for the market and which ones were painted from the heart. Can’t you tell? I’ll bet you can. And which would you buy? So maybe there isn’t a conflict.

One of the useful pieces of advice that I got in art school was to do what you do and find a market for it rather than chase the market, which will always put you behind the curve.

Tania, if a series is what grabs you. Do it! If it was good enough for Monet…..