Art should never try to be popular. The public should try to make itself artistic.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Popular art is the dream of society; it does not examine itself.
So at a time in which the media give the public everything it wants and desires, maybe art should adopt a much more aggressive attitude towards the public. I myself am very much inclined to take this position.
Art is about the 'I' in life not the 'we', about private life rather than public. A public life that doesn't acknowledge the private is a life not worth having.
In America, the only truly popular art form is the movies. Most people consider painting a hobby and literature, schoolwork.
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 have to say that I reject somewhat the distinction between something called art and something called public art. I think all art demands and desires to be seen.
I think that high art reposes on popular art, without one there cannot be another.
No matter how hard I tried to popularize, I never cheapened a great work of art.
The public needs art - and it is the responsibility of a 'self-proclaimed artist' to realize that the public needs art, and not to make bourgeois art for a few and ignore the masses.
If people think of public art as something the public decides, it's impossible to make anything of substance.