A  show at the Espacio gallery in Shoreditch from the group I have been a part of for the last two years has just ended. It’s a been an interesting and busy few weeks – first leading up to the exhibition, choosing potential exhibits, framing paintings (pleased to say I did my own frames for the first time) and packaging prints.

Transportation to the gallery posed issues as some of my painting were too big to go in the back of the Volvo estate, but luckily they survived the journey on the roof rack.  Then the curators, Chris Hough and Tony Hull, selected the works and positioning, inevitably leaving to some disappointment as there was not space for everything.

Overall the show looked good and displayed the variety and high quality of the works produced (which was not just my opinion but that of many visitors).  As my main paintings were large (1.5 metres square) I only had space for one painting (see top), and a selection of prints in the browser, one of which sold – see below.

It has also made me think more about what art is for and why we do it.  The packaging and pricing of the artworks brings to the forefront the commercial and financial aspect of art, which is particularly prominent in commissioned work (which historically was typically the way it worked).

So is art just a way of making money, or is it a primal creative impulse to express, a cultural symbol or activity, a decorative hobby, a skilled craft, an intellectual exercise, a message to the world, or a route to fame and favour?  These issues have been discussed in writing on the history and theory of art, including some of the finest minds from Plato to Marx and Freud and beyond.

In all truth its a mix of all these factors, in varying proportions according to circumstances such as the prevalent culture at the time. Art obviously cannot be divorced from money – after all it governs who can afford to make art, although most will agree that currently unless you’re one of the fortunate few it’s not the best way of making money.