That is why the analogy of stealing does not work. With a thief, we want to know how much money he stole, and from whom. With the artist it is not how much he took and from whom, but what he did with it.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The artist belongs to his work, not the work to the artist.
If a patron buys from an artist who needs money, the patron then makes himself equal to the artist; he is building art into the world; he creates.
I strongly suggest that we play down basics like who influenced whom, and instead study the way the influence is transformed, in other words: how the artist made it his own.
The writer knows his own worth, and to be overvalued can confuse and destroy him as an artist.
Every artist preserves deep within him a single source from which, throughout his lifetime, he draws what he is, and what he says. When the source dries up, the work withers and crumbles.
There is only one valuable thing in art: the thing you cannot explain.
What an artist learns matters little. What he himself discovers has a real worth for him, and gives him the necessary incitement to work.
Lesser artists borrow, great artists steal.
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.
Money is something that can be measured; art is not. It's all subjective.
No opposing quotes found.