The public needs art - and it is the responsibility of a 'self-proclaimed artist' to realize that the public needs art, and not to make bourgeois art for a few and ignore the masses.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I have to say that I reject somewhat the distinction between something called art and something called public art. I think all art demands and desires to be seen.
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.
I believe art has to take responsibility but it should not give up being art.
It was Public Art, defined as art that is purchased by experts who are not spending their own personal money.
An artist cannot be responsible for what people make of their art. An audience loathe giving up preconceived images of an artist.
If people think of public art as something the public decides, it's impossible to make anything of substance.
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.
I believe the artist has an obligation to society.
I mean, art for art's sake is ridiculous. Art is for the sake of one's needs.
Art should never try to be popular. The public should try to make itself artistic.