Sorry in advance for scrambled ideas and grammatically complicated sentences. Or sorry in advance for lack of those and added confusion. It seems that when I don't try I think like this anyway and it gets translated no matter what . . .

So, for those of you who have read the book A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, [spoiler if you haven't . . ] at the end of it, Stephen leaves the constraints of society to live as a true artist. In doing so, he leaves behind his school education and his family. By his terms, "artist" seems to be a loner who lives in the world and Nature but is socially distant. Although it is just a story, a lot of the account was based on Joyce's life and of course, people do similar things today. So today I am wondering, what do you think of this decision if an actual person were to do it today? Is being a true "artist" having the need for spiritual and artistic fulfillment? Is the only way of achieving it leaving family, work, friends, and other responsibilities? Do you believe it is worth it to live for others and take the responsibility one put upon oneself but remain spiritually dead instead of going off in solitude to find oneself spiritually but leaving those behind to hurt?

I sure hope leaving family and friends behind isn't the only way to become a 'true' artist. I consider myself an artist in that I make things that can be considered art - I draw, paint, sculpt, and make jewelry. And to think about it, no, I don't believe you have to leave everything behind to achieve that. Maybe some people do, sure, but I think it's different for everyone, just as a lot of things are different for everyone - the type of work they do, the music they like, etc. I think one has to find a middle ground in living for others but still remaining true to who you are. I don't think it's worth it if you have to be miserable to make someone else happy. I mean, yes, making others happy and doing things for people is important, and yes, sometimes you have to put yourself out to do that, but it shouldn't always be that way. Hurting people is never really the right way to go, unless they've done something to you and leaving them behind, even though it hurts them, is the only way to make things better for you.

Shit, I totally went off on a couple of tangents there. I don't even remember my point, lol. shrug Take it for what you will.

This post is kind of old but I felt a need to respond. Sorry. I think personally the point of the "artist" depiction was not to call people to follow his way (leaving and whatnot). Dedalus claimed art is when "your spirit could express itself in unfettered freedom". He is calling people to be yourself and not let others restrain you. I find that in the novel it is quite the opposite of socially distant. At the beginning of the novel, Stephen is restrained and anti-social. He realizes he is different and struggles with that inwardly. None of his so-called friends truly know him at all (in fact, a friend whose name I've forgotten said that "Dedalus is a model youth...he doesn't damn anything or damn all." not knowing that Stephen goes out and gets prostitutes and such); however, he is afraid of rejection and isolation despite the fact that he is already isolated in his own sin. And then, as you know, he gets piety scared into him. Of course, inwardly he is still questioning himself because this isn't the real Stephen. He, trying to fit in and not get rejected, still is isolated ("Such a boy is marked off from his companions by his piety"). Stephen then realizes HEY YO FUCK THIS SHIT and begins to think for himself. You watch a rapid transition - his diction changes from ridiculously negative to positive and you begin to see him socialize more and be happy. Joyce even depicts several discussions with peers on religion VS non religion to show that, while Stephen is different, now he is not alone. None of these arguments make him lose friends. In fact, he becomes even more well known for it. The point of freedom is repeated over and over - the entire meaning of the novel. You should be yourself. Basically, I think that the idea of this novel representing what an artist "should be" is not the way to look at this. Artist is a label that Joyce gave himself/Stephen. The way to look at this is that Stephen struggled to find his true self and that's what everyone should be doing.

As for the questions you asked, I look at the story in a completely different way than you did so I can't exactly answer them straight-forward manner. I did enjoy thinking about it differently though (and breaking out like 15 pages of notes since I did a paper on this recently :P)

OKAY SORRY BYE