Art to me is a humanitarian act and I believe that there is a responsibility that art should somehow be able to effect mankind, to make the word a better place.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
My position is that serious and good art has always existed to help, to serve, humanity. Not to indict. I don't see how art can be called art if its purpose is to frustrate humanity.
I believe art has to take responsibility but it should not give up being art.
Art is great. At its best, it engages the intellect and challenges the spirit; it connects us across history and reminds us of our humanity.
Art exists for the human species. I think that all of the people who love art, those who teach art, and all of you should burn with the obligation to save the world.
Art must unquestionably have a social value; that is, as a potential means of communication it must be addressed, and in comprehensible terms, to the understanding of mankind.
I think all art is, by nature, intended to motivate society for change, and the only reason change doesn't happen is because within the target population, courage is lacking.
Art should be life. It's an imitation of life. It should have some humanity in it.
I'm not saying everybody has a social responsibility of what art they create, but art should be open-ended. I just feel there's a lack of consciousness and understanding of impact and reach. Just maybe, for a second, just think of the effect you could have with a lyric.
Art's a very metaphysical activity. It's something that enriches the parameters of your life, the possibilities of being, and you touch transcendence and you change your life. And you want to change the life of others, too. That's why people are involved with art.
All art really does is keep you focused on questions of humanity, and it really is about how do we get on with our maker.
No opposing quotes found.