First gallery that showed any interest in my work wanted me to make smaller pieces. Said the big stuff wouldn't sell. I said no. Took another three years to get into a space that let me show what I actually make.
Sometimes I wonder if that was stupid.
Anyone else been pushed to change your work to fit a gallery? Did you bend or walk?
That wasn't stupid. Three years is a lot, I get why you'd wonder. But you showed what you actually make, and that's the whole point isn't it? Otherwise you're just... making their stuff.
I had someone once tell me my pastels were too soft, too smudgy, that I should sharpen up my edges for a more "finished" look. I tried it for about two weeks and hated every piece. Went straight back to blending. Probably cost me that opportunity but I think I'd rather keep making work I believe in than change for someone who doesn't even like what I do.
Three years is a long time to wait, I get why you'd second-guess. But I think about all the artists I admire and none of them got there by making smaller versions of what someone else wanted. They got there because they kept making the thing only they could make.
I had someone once suggest I switch to pencil because pastel is "too messy for portraits." Almost listened. Glad I didn't.
Was it stupid? I don't think so. Just expensive. But the other option costs something else.
The pencil thing really gets me. Someone telling you your medium is wrong before they've even seen what you can do with it. Like pastel is just inherently lesser. I get that one.
I don't think it was stupid either. Three years is brutal, I won't pretend it isn't. But the other option, you'd still be wondering, years later, if your own work would have been enough. That kind of doubt doesn't go away. At least this way you know.