My uncle is really into this and it's extremely hard work. He spends the bulk of his waking hours working and planning on how he's going to survive today and the day after. It's crucial that he plan carefully and try to anticipate his needs in the winter so that he can survive to the spring. He provides for most of his needs himself, but for those things he can't provide, he works out some sort of trade using the barter system. Those things he can't get through trade, he buys. His total cash outlay for one month was $7.00.

Thing is, he's an artist, and a damned good one. I have one of his paintings. That was before he got way into being self-sufficient. Now he has no time to create. Surviving takes up all his time. But hey, he loves it and seems happy. He takes pride in not having to work for someone else or rely on a paycheck to acquire the things he can mostly make with better quality for himself, so who's to judge?

If Michaelangelo or da Vinci, or Van Gogh - or any other great artist that comes to mind in any endeavor of artistic creativity you care to mention - had had to spend as much time as my uncle to ensure their survival and to provide themselves the necessities needed to merely sustain life, I wonder, would the Sistine Chapel ever have gotten painted? Would we have today the divine luxury of being intrigued by Mona Lisa's smile? Would Van Gogh have had time to be inspired by the night sky, or would he have been too tired to paint "Starry Night?"