All good art is seditious, but the people in authority can never recognise it. I think when you mention sedition, artists are the ones whose eyes light up thinking, 'Oh, yes, I want some of that!'
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I cannot tell good art from bad art. I have no eye for it.
Every work of art is an uncommitted crime.
I think good art does come from a dark place.
If a work of art is rich and vital and complete, those who have artistic instincts will see its beauty, and those to whom ethics appeal more strongly than aesthetics will see its moral lesson. It will fill the cowardly with terror, and the unclean will see in it their own shame.
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.
Art is a liaison between some sort of deranged mentality and others who are not going through it.
Art is maybe a subversive activity. There is a certain rebellion when you are an artist at heart, even if only in the art of living.
There is so much art can do to enlighten people, no matter what their views might be. If art can't go there or doesn't elevate the social consciousness in some way, then we are in peril.
Great art is an instant arrested in eternity.
My position is that serious and good art has always existed to help, to serve, humanity. Not to indict. I don't see how art can be called art if its purpose is to frustrate humanity.
No opposing quotes found.