I make this statement with the utmost respect for the artistic process.  My mom is an artist that gave up her art and a full scholarship to the Corcoran to marry my dad and start a family.  So I guess I can’t say that they’re entirely selfish or I wouldn’t be here to make this statement.  Instead, what I’m saying is that artists create art for themselves, not for mass consumption.  Many times I have asked my mom to paint something for me to hang in my house.  I really like watercolors.  I told her that it doesn’t matter what it is, just paint something for me.  She has a lot of trouble with this and tells me, “I can’t just paint something.  I have to be inspired.  I have to be in the mood.”  Why, I ask her.  She responds with something like “I have to feel something,” or “I can’t just paint something because someone wants me to.” 

Adorno posited that Art has become commodified because now it is so cheap that everyone can afford it.  Once the masses can afford a mass-produced copy of Monet’s “Waterlillies” or VanGogh’s “Scream,” then art has lost its true essence.  However he did acknowledge that during the Renaissance art was commissioned by the nobility. 

It is curious that Mr. Mathews tells Eben to paint people  because they reflect time, while Mrs. Spinney tells him to paint churches and flowers.  Eben has no problem parting with the churches and flowers but holds on to the portrait of Jennie until he absolutely needs the money.  The money he gets from the sale of Jennie feeds his body while the portrait feeds his soul.  Artists must be so territorial over their art for this very reason.  It feeds their soul.  If the portrait of Jennie fed his soul then does that make them soulmates?  If so, then why couldn’t they be together?