I'm the first to post on the "new media/craft" topic, so I'm sorry if I get some things wrong. I really think that there has to be a middle ground between doing as little work as possible and spending years on one piece. Now, there has to be some consideration for the media that an artist is working in also. One painting could take as long as 10 digital pieces. But, I don't think that just because you can, that you should spend 5 minutes on a piece, or five years. An artist should have a goal and should work towards that goal. I also think that every art piece should take into consideration the audience that will see it. There is always an audience, whether or not one is wanted. So a piece should take so medium amount of time, achieve some goal of the artist, and have some intended (or unintended) audience. Another personal thought of mine is that no art piece should deprive an artist from the necessities. This means that if an artist has to work so hard on a piece that they loss sleep for days (we've all lost sleep working on a piece, but this is not the same) or if they can't afford to eat or have a home, then it is too much. If an artist spends so much time on an artwork that they can't eat or sleep or live under a roof, then it is too much. This also takes into account if an artist is not working for the audience that will be seeing the piece. An artist can make hundreds of pieces, but if they are not intended for the audience that sees them, and the artist suffers for it, then it's not worth it. Don't take me wrong, I know that it can be hard to sell work or get a paying art job, this is not what I'm talking about. If an artist can't sell their work, but their shows do well then that's okay, but if they can't sell their work, because it's not for an audience or the audience that sees it, then maybe they're getting something wrong.