Art criticism today is beset by art historians turned inside out to function as prophets of so-called inevitable trends. A determinism similar to that projected into the evolution of past styles is clamped upon art in the making. In this parody of art history, value judgments are deduced from a presumed logic of development, and an ultimatum is issued to artists either to accommodate themselves to these values or be banned from the art of the future. An aesthetician founded on art history wields a club of dogma similar to moralistic criticism in the nineteenth century or political criticism in the Soviet Union.
Dead art movements are the normal life of art; all that can be expected of them is good painting.
In regard to creation there is nothing to indicate that a new art movement has any advantage over an obsolete one; the contrary may well be the case.
After 1972 anyone could be an artist, except, perhaps, painters and sculptors.
No degree of dullness can safeguard a work against the determination of critics to find it fascinating.
Geoff Chris Olson (Vancouver Courier)
I recognize that artists must seek new means of expression to remain vibrant and relevant, and that censoring bad art will only make matters worse, but the bar of what is classified as art has been lowered so much that anything, no matter how moving or mindless, is treated equally. The fault lies less with these "artists" than with the politically motivated ignoramuses who allow such work to be funded.
Vincent Van Gogh
The buying and selling of art is nothing more than organized robbery.
- When the demagogues of art call on you to make the good art, the intelligible art, the social art, spit down on them and go back to your dreams, your mirror and the World.
Probably to normal people the smirky art and the death art are all the same old onions, and, if so, I kind of know what they mean. But anyway King Death is Joseph Beuys and Queen Death is Louise Bourgeois. King Smirky is Jeff Koons and Prince Smirky is Damien Hirst. So this is definitely a Beuys and Bourgois type show. Long faces all round.
Robert Motherwell (from a 1944 lecture)
I am a free man. I do not work for a padrone, or a boss. I am indifferent to things that do not interest me. But never would I attack them. Especially in the creative arts. Because I say anybody who does creative art is a sacred person. I do not care what he does. Whether he paints academic pictures, or he is modern, or different from anything else. He cannot do any harm. Whereas a bad politician, or a bad doctor, or a bad cook can kill you!"
Dr. W. Grampp