Money is something that can be measured; art is not. It's all subjective.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Art is a subjective thing, and it should be a subjective thing. And the difficulty of subjectivity is that it becomes hugely problematized when you start applying large sums of money to art objects. That's where it all starts to get a bit sticky.
Art is often valuable precisely because it isn't a sensible way to make money.
Art and money are closely related. Try sitting down with a group of artists and ask them what's on their mind. Very quickly the topic shifts to money. And it can be very hard to get them off that subject.
People would rather have art or gold instead of paper money.
Money is not real. It is a conscious agreement on measuring value.
Art shows us that human beings still matter in a world where money talks the loudest, where computers know everything about us, and where robots fabricate our next meal and also our ride there.
First of all, what in this world does not revolve around money? But money is a big part of film, unlike a lot of other art forms.
Defining art is huge; I feel like it's such a subjective thing. It's more like what's not art. You know what I mean? I think there can be an art in the way people live their lives, and art can be a gift someone gives to somebody.
The price of a work of art has nothing to do with what the work of art is, can do, or is worth on an existential, alchemical level.
That is why I believe that art is so much more significant than either economics or philosophy. It is the direct measure of man's spiritual vision.