Owners of valuable works of art don't give to institutions that don't provide good air conditioning and have good shows.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
There are situations which cannot honorably be met by art.
One does not devote one's life in art to shock an audience.
Making art in America is sort of a political statement in and of itself. It's not the best environment for that sometimes.
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.
I suppose illustration tends to live in the streets, rather than in the hermetically sealed atmosphere of the museum, and consequently it has come to be taken less seriously.
Unfortunately, the boards of art institutions tend to be populated with well-meaning supporters of the arts who often lack any business background or appetite for imposing appropriate discipline.
People expect things from art that are horrible for us who make it! They put the things we make in these restrictive places called 'museums,' then don't want to hear another word from us.
Most museums - with all their burdens to pay for exhibitions, administration, and security - really don't have any money really to acquire art, with few exceptions.
An artist cannot be responsible for what people make of their art. An audience loathe giving up preconceived images of an artist.
Art is often valuable precisely because it isn't a sensible way to make money.
No opposing quotes found.