If art is singular expression, then by nature, the best art is controversial. But when art stirs debate for reasons besides its artistic integrity, that's when things get bent.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Art is so subjective, and people can react however they want.
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.
Controversy is part of the nature of art and creativity.
Art should offend people because art should challenge people.
I think the point of art is to be controversial in a lot of ways. It's to cause conversations, and it's to get people excited about and talking about the things that the films are about.
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.
Because art as a pursuit, as a concept, as an ideal, constantly elevates one above the pragmatic, one is inclined to discuss art in heightened terminologies. For me, it is just what I do all day long.
I mean, art for art's sake is ridiculous. Art is for the sake of one's needs.
Art is a subject that is inundated with opinions. In fact, that's all it is about is opinions.
There's a point where art is not subjective, and my example for that is Picasso. If you don't like Picasso, that's your problem.