If I said something like "The only real value one's art has is to one self and no one else." How would you guys and gals respond?
That's a very elliptical statement, and is subject to many interpretations.
The first one would be that art is truly worthless to anyone except its maker. If anybody has ever appreciated somebody else's artwork, then this proposition does not stand. I think it is the case. I appreciate other people's artwork. I have had people appreciating my work (thank you so much, the two people who did!). Ergo, my art has a real, existing value that is not limited to what I give it. It's not much, but it's true.
The second one, a variation on the first, would be more to the effect that the only value of my art that I can really be sure of is the one I give it myself. Like Descartes, I fear so much to be deceived by other people's appreciation, that I will rely only on my own cogito to ground my knowledge. It's a pretty shaky position, that borders on solipsism. As Wittgenstein said, the problem with solipsists is that have yet to meet another one. Give a little trust to other people, Jimmy, that will do ya good.
The third one, the more charitable one, would be that a photographer does not need approval to pursue his goals. Genius knows itself, but not-genius seldom recognize it. If people call you crap, sham, phoney, weak, or loser, then do not listen about their devaluation, and care instead for the shred of value you harbour within your breast about your art. Not a bad position to have, but if taken in a radical way, it might just be your downfall. Art is also communication, and taking cues from audience is just another tool you can use to make your art better. YMMV.
There are, I am sure, plenty of other interpretations. But I'm tired tonight.
So in the end, pithy statements do not necessarily embody great wisdom. They do wreak havoc on weak interpreters, however, who will tear each other to shreds in yes/no camps.
Art, you little provocateur, have some more popcorn!