When art is defined by Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons, you've got a society that's impoverished.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I think most art comes out of poverty and hard times.
What strikes me is the fact that in our society, art has become something which is only related to objects, and not to individuals, or to life.
It's easier to make art for a society at a certain point in time with an understanding of what's going on.
Art is much less important than life, but what a poor life without it.
I think that a society lives or dies according to its respect for - for its art.
Some folks believe that hardship breeds artistic creativity. I don't buy it. One can put up with poverty for a while when one is young, but it will inevitably wear a person down.
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.
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.
Art is only a means to life, to the life more abundant. It is not in itself the life more abundant. It merely points the way, something which is overlooked not only by the public, but very often by the artist himself. In becoming an end it defeats itself.
Art is the job of the privileged.