Some of them made me cry in relief and help me put down terrible, terrible baggage.
I think some of those images were shared with one or two people. It's been a lot of years and I really can't remember (how many/if all were shared and other details) because sharing them or not sharing them apparently didn't make much impression on me, but I do still remember breaking down and crying as the shackles of the chains in my soul broke and fell away and turned to dust because of the act of making the drawing.
Or, to put that another way: if there is only one animal alive in a forest, and that animal produces noise intentionally, but has no organ for sensing noise, have they made a “sound”?
Some words are only meaningful in the context of interpersonal communication. “Art” is, IMHO, one of them. Without an observer secondary to the artist, the question “is this art” has a NULL answer. Not an arbitrary one — a lack of one. Because encoded in the meaning of the word “art” is the assumption that you’re asking someone else that question.
This definition does not require the audience be not the artist. If one creates an instance for the sole purpose of being perceived by one's self alone, that is still art.
Do you not use language to describe the world to yourself and help you understand it? Can you not do the same thing with art?
Edit: After more consideration, these sorts of means of internal communication might something like internal monologues or visualization and function quite differently for different people.
If a masterpiece painting is created by a blind artist, never seen by anyone including himself for 500 years. Then it is discovered after 500 years. What is the status of this art through this timeline?
Art and beauty remain what they are irrespective of an audience.
Now, whether something is really art or beautiful, and who decides that are entirely different questions..
