The Constitution wanted artists to have control over their works because they knew it would create incentive to create more works. That is clearly still the goal.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I believe that the artist's involvement in the capitalist structure is disadvantageous to the artist and forces him to produce objects in order to live.
As long as artists arbitrarily assume the right to decide what is or is not art, it is logical that the public will just as arbitrarily feel that they have the right to reject it.
Artists to my mind are the real architects of change, and not the political legislators who implement change after the fact.
As an artist I have an even more abiding interest in the compact between the Arts and Government.
All the traditional models for doing things are collapsing; from music to publishing to film, and it's a wide open door for people who are creative to do what they need to do without having institutions block their art.
I think artists need the freedom to fail and I gave myself that freedom.
Artists and art institutions have to learn how to play hardball. A democratic society needs a democratic art and we have a right to demand it.
To restrict the artist is a crime. It is to murder germinating life.
Government shouldn't try to dictate what art looks like or what it portrays. Last thing we want is government screwing it up, which is what they would do.
What artists are doing, and what people who are receiving the arts are doing, is entering into this agreement to occupy a parallel world. The parallel world is ever-expanding. We used to think that it existed only for people who were wealthy, well-born, or educated. It isn't like that.
No opposing quotes found.