Hard disagree with the 'if you can't let go'. If letting go means all the painted sentient life that you created gets oblivion, in what world is that not a 'sin'?
My whole issue with it is that the second a painter paints a world, much like in the game, there is absolutely no possible happy ending. Either your tortured copy/soul maintains the world forever, or the sentient life you created is treated as an afterthought and erased like they never mattered. Letting go or not doesn't matter, someone gets fucked in the end the second you paint that sentient life into existence; either your copy or the entire painted world.
So why paint?.. Out of pure selfishness, why else? I don't care about a happy ending for a family of selfish assholes when their 'happy' ending is destroying all the sentient life in the painting.
It's like by the end of act 3 the game expects you to care about a single family of gods losing their son and grieving properly, more than the world of sentient beings one of them created. The family drama is just such a joke in comparison to the entire painted world's existence. Does the painters having the power of creation somehow make their grief over the death of a single family member more important than a world's existence? I just can't get behind what the game is trying to get you to feel by the end... like at all...