All art is an intensely vulnerable gesture, and it is made with no small amounts of risk, and fear. So, I have plenty of sympathy for self-defense mechanisms, especially among artists.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Art is a way to express yourself and through that you can escape a bad situation.
So I am totally aware that when I defend the autonomy of art I'm going counter to my own development. It's more an instinctive reaction, meant to protect the private aspect of the work, the part I am most interested in and which nowadays is at risk in our culture.
Art never harms itself by keeping aloof from the social problems of the day: rather, by so doing, it more completely realises for us that which we desire.
Art is dangerous. It is one of the attractions: when it ceases to be dangerous you don't want 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.
If there isn't at least the threat of violence in art, it tends to be kind of tiresome.
I grew up when people seemed actually to be hurting themselves for their art. Of course, some of it was phony.
Everybody is bound by some social rules. But I think that artists need some kind of freedom to explore their minds and that some of them tend to take that freedom to live a little more openly or a little more dangerously, sometimes a lot more self-destructively, than other people.
I don't think you should ever damage other people for your art.
Art is a liaison between some sort of deranged mentality and others who are not going through it.
No opposing quotes found.