I don't do journals much, but this thought popped into my head on the way home from work, and I want to get it out.

I often cruise FA for new articles that catch my interest, as I am sure everyone does. Some I choose to explore further, while others are seen and forgotten just as quickly. There are just so many submissions and posts that to try and follow every single one in existence would be ludicrous to the point of insanity. There isn't a person alive that could make the claim to have seen every article that FA has to offer. Well, OK, they could make the CLAIM, but it would no doubt be a bold-faced lie.

So, some articles get looked at, and others don't. But there isn't always a set pattern; sometimes I will look at art pieces that aren't as polished as other works, and I like them better. Or a short story that is succinct and to the point grips me more than an epic work that spans multiple chapters. Or to use the same analogy, a story riddled with grammatical errors might nevertheless strike my fancy more than a similar story with better spelling and form.

So, if there's not really a pattern, what makes a work worth looking at? And I have to conclude, I'm not entirely sure; people can find different values in the same piece or artwork or writing. It comes down to our uniqueness as individuals. And because of this, are any single one of us truly qualified to say whether a work of art is good or bad?

And if that's the case, what does qualify as good or bad? I have given it some thought, and I have to conclude that it is largely up to the individual who produces said art. But everyone tends to be their own worst critic in the works that they produce. If there is no satisfaction from creating something, what does that mean for the art itself?

Well, I think I have kinda developed a philosophy regarding that. I think a piece of art's merit is largely determined by the effort that said creator put into it. Now, let me explain. One might argue that it takes no effort to produce a stick figure or a similar likeness. Maybe for most, this is true. But if someone takes the time and effort to create the stick figure, doesn't that lend the work some uniqueness? And likewise, if a great artist can produce a masterpiece that few are capable of with little to no effort, doesn't that in part detract from the overall value of the picture?

There is a stick figure series that is somewhat well-known in certain circles, called Ruby Quest. It was created by someone here on FA called  The_Weaver (he joined up after he created and finished this series), and it has been made into a flash series by  TekStation some time ago. Both the original series and the flash series are remarkably well-done, and I enjoy going back to read the story and look at the art every once in a while. It's a series that focuses heavily on plot and character interaction, and not so much the art, but the art itself lends a certain something to the whole environment. It's easy to see there was a lot of work involved in the project, and it developed into something unique and special. It's a perfect example how something can blossom when you put something into your work.

So, I'll get off of my virtual soapbox for now. To everyone out there who expresses an interest in creating something, by all means, do so. It might not always be what you're hoping for, but if you put your heart into it, someone out there will take notice. And you have that moment where you can look back and say, "This is mine. I did this. This is a part of me." Sometimes that little assertion can be a stepping stone for something more.