So far I have three theories about why artists might be artists and not lawyers or doctors. The first relates to possible individual reasons, the second to historical factors and the third, to superstructural influences.

I will work these in reverse. Superstructural: what I mean by this word is the bigger picture of the world rather than the infrastructure of a local community. Some artists’ work have affected the world and even brought change. The DADAISTS created work that had a great political effect. Salvador Dali created work that was in harmony with thinkers such as Sigmund Freud. Female artists such as Tracy Emin and Gillian Wearing challenged 20th century perceptions of women as artists. Making change on a global level is very difficult, but these individuals and others have instigated change through their art.

Historical: my first art history teacher told me that art from the past was, in some cases, the only historical window from which we can understand how people from that time lived. I agree with her on this and would go further and say that artists today have a duty to record, honestly, the world that we live in. People in the future can therefore get a feel for what it was like to live at the beginning of the 21st century. 100 years from now I would rather look at art than read what the ‘papers’ said as we all know that not all of it is 100% true.

Finally: individual reasons. Some artists, like a lot of people, find the world in which they reside extremely difficult to live in. So, they create their own world through their art. They alone are the God, the controller – they move all the pieces on the chessboard. I half love this one and half hate it.