Quote

So at a time in which the media give the public everything it wants and desires, maybe art should adopt a much more aggressive attitude towards the public. I myself am very much inclined to take this position.

When artists make art, they shouldn't question whether it is permissible to do one thing or another.

Performers have the right to say what they want to, and anyone paying money has the right to accept or reject the art and entertainment that's available.

It's a pity that if someone who has a really profoundly potent art to share chooses not to or doesn't fit into this very thin slice of what's desirable and marketable, chances are the public will never get a chance to hear what they're doing.

There should be a law that no ordinary newspaper should be allowed to write about art. The harm they do by their foolish and random writing it would be impossible to overestimate - not to the artist, but to the public, blinding them to all but harming the artist not at all.

If people think of public art as something the public decides, it's impossible to make anything of substance.

An artist cannot be responsible for what people make of their art. An audience loathe giving up preconceived images of an artist.

Art is about the 'I' in life not the 'we', about private life rather than public. A public life that doesn't acknowledge the private is a life not worth having.

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.

No one's conception of art is going to be acceptable to everybody.