I think with the whole new Internet media, I'm not necessarily Internet savvy, but I just feel that the way that art in general will be presented to the public is going to be different.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
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.
We don't know what the next generation of art is going to look like. We're kind of making it up as we go along. Not unlike the tech industry.
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.
Art is for anyone. It just isn't for everyone. Still, over the past decade, its audience has hugely grown, and that's irked those outside the art world, who get irritated at things like incomprehensibility or money.
What I am really concerned about is what art is supposed to be - and can become.
What the art world has done, it has been constantly been pushing the boundaries about what art can be. It's like expanding its territory.
We are engaging with so many art forms at once in the 21st century, but we're presented with them in a way that is so isolated.
Art should never try to be popular. The public should try to make itself artistic.
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.
Much good art got made while money ruled; I like a lot of it, and hardship and poverty aren't virtues. The good news is that, since almost no one will be selling art, artists - especially emerging ones - won't have to think about turning out a consistent style or creating a brand. They'll be able to experiment as much as they want.