I believe that the artist's involvement in the capitalist structure is disadvantageous to the artist and forces him to produce objects in order to live.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The real artist has no idea that he is sacrificing himself for art. He does what he does for one reason and one reason only-he can't help doing it.
What the artist owes the world is his work; not a model for living.
I believe the artist has an obligation to society.
The artist never really has any control over the impact of his work. If he starts thinking about the impact of his work, then he becomes a lesser artist.
A lot of artists are much more concerned about how their work is used and how it's disseminated. That, to artists, is as important as the money, for some people.
The artist is not responsible to any one. His social role is asocial... his only responsibility consists in an attitude to the work he does.
Artists change how we see the world - and that can have value in the way people do business.
If an artist is driven primarily by social responsibility, I think the art probably suffers because, again, just as leadership has a rather defined end point or purpose, social responsibility would seem to have a very clear moral context.
The artist is something of an outsider in America. I have always felt that America does not value its artists, certainly not in the sense that the Europeans do.
All artists are people of growth. It's like food, you take the good and leave the rest.
No opposing quotes found.