Here is my two-pence:
As a triptic, I think there is something going on there. It would be good to see how the interaction between the three pieces could be developed. It would also be great to see some more depth within the painting field (I know art representation is tricky, so apologise if the depth is already there but just not coming across in the photos) -- Kristin Baker is the first artist who comes to mind who achieves this excellently with acrylics: http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/art...baker_raft.htm
Seeing this piece in person, and even in that photo, you can see that she really pushes the transparency of this medium to its limits, saturating the work with movement.
As MiniMia points out, the term "starving artist" is not just a cliché, and doesn't only apply to financial side of the career choice. It sounds as though you wouldn't be on the bread line if you didn't sell, but becoming a full-time artist can nevertheless be quite punishing. It sounds easy, but managing your workflow and time as an artist (particularly when you are at the behest of the mercurial creative flow!), with no structure at all from a course, commission or private tutor, is incredibly demanding mentally and emotionally (knowing some artists, I would even go so far as to say existentially also!). More so, when you are trying to push your work to the next level.
As part of preparing for a career-change to Architecture, I practised art full-time myself for just over a year. Like you, I had a narrow formal education in it. I worked in artists' studios in Hackney, London alongside full-time "career" artists, and saw first-hand what a challenging lifestyle. For the most part, artists were struggling to even get enough time in the studio, for all the time they had to spend second-jobbing (a good proportion had had to sign-on to the dole at some point in their careers too) and networking with gallerists. Some of their work was exceptional but they remained in this frustrating balance -- i.e. even great work far from guarantees that you'll get the audience you want.
I am definitely a believer in pursuing a career you are passionate about, but again as MiniMia says, being an artist is really a lifestyle. Naturally the line between all vocations and one's life outside work can become extremely blurred. As an artist, the line just doesn't exist (in my opinion anyway). It's a way of viewing the world, of interpreting it, of responding to it, of grafting onto it, reinterpreting your response, taking it apart, starting again, etc. The decision to earn money as an artist (cynical attempts to pander to trends in buyers' taste aside), is a decision to live differently full-stop.
As such, I'd say that whether or not you move in this direction really depends on what you hope to get from it. (Sounds obvious but can often be taken for granted!) If you find the act of creating art per se very rewarding, and more so than you could imagine finding anything else, and would still do it regardless of how much money you'd make, then do it! If whether or not you do it depends in part on how successful you think you would be, I would spend as much time as you can right now getting out there and (re-)seeing as much art as possible -- in the galleries, private collections, museums etc. Throughout, honestly ask yourself whether you believe you could work towards producing something that could stand its own alongside any of the pieces you like or admire. (And ideally, go out with a sketchbook and respond to the work as you experience it.) Without this conviction in your own work, I'd say it'd be very difficult to sustain this kind of career choice.
I hope the above helps!