Throughout history, self-styled arbiters have taken it upon themselves to decide the question of what can or cannot be the legitimate purview of art.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
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.
It may be that the deep necessity of art is the examination of self-deception.
Whether art is defined as a representation of or response to reality, it demands an intense engagement with things we haven't managed to understand fully.
Art is so subjective, and people can react however they want.
When you look at art made by other people, you see what you need to see in it.
Art is a liaison between some sort of deranged mentality and others who are not going through it.
If you try to go beyond your interests just for the sake of pretensions or wealth, your art becomes less legitimate.
Basically, I viewed any work of art as an imposition of another person's taste, and saw the individual making this imposition as a kind of dictator.
Art is not a thing; it is a way.
Any authentic work of art must start an argument between the artist and his audience.