Maurizio Cattelan Quotes

I think TV promulgates the idea that good art is just art which makes people like and depend on the vehicle that brings them the art.

I've always seen TV as... it didn't occupy the same rarefied space as literature, but it's art you can use day to day. I've never been hung up on where it figures in the hierarchy of learning.

I don't believe in very many things, but art is definitely one of them. And at the top of that list, film and art influence our world's culture much more than many of us understand and fully respect.

Your average pop song or film is a very sophisticated item, with very sophisticated ways of listening and viewing that we have not really consciously developed over the years - because we were having such a good time.

The importance of the arts to the societies in which they thrive is well documented.

I've come to realize that the contemporary creative culture is not generating the best possible outcome.

I continually marvel at people who can make films that reach five hundred million people. How do you do that? Everybody's different - I don't know how that works.

The entertainment industry is vast and is a reflection of the society we live in.

Cinema will always have an important role to play in society.

Film, therefore, is part of society, not distant from it, easy to experience for people regardless of class.

I think that every time you bring a subject into the mainstream landscape of television, it can have a huge impact. Television is such an influential medium.

I'm somebody who's really contributed to culture. Popular culture.

'The Piano' ended up on television. Everything ends up there anyway.

I think most of the best new work is intended to have much more impact at once.

I really appreciate anyone trying to inject art into mainstream film.

The No. 1 quote critics give me is, 'Thom, your work is irrelevant.' Now, that's a fascinating, fascinating comment. Yes, irrelevant to the little subculture, this microculture, of modern art. But here's the point: My art is relevant because it's relevant to 10 million people. That makes me the most relevant artist in this culture.

Some people think literature is high culture and that it should only have a small readership. I don't think so... I have to compete with popular culture, including TV, magazines, movies and video games.

The entertainment medium of film is particularly tuned to the present imaginations of people at large. A lot of fiction is intensely nostalgic.

Poetry is not mainstream, but then neither is serious fiction, really. But I don't think there's a lot to worry about in this particular 'problem'. Why does art have to be mainstream to be significant?

Anytime you can be a part of something that hopefully tries to make a cultural contribution, I love the idea of that.

Whether you do a play in front of 100 people or a movie that one billion people see, you're still affecting people.

Film is something that reaches so many people. How many people are going to go into a gallery? And understand what they're seeing? I think about the guy walking down the street, the guy who drove me here - this guy has the opportunity to go the cinema.

I think that 'Twilight' is so big that nothing can affect it.

What's my dilemma here? Am I making entertainment or am I making art? What am I saying? At the end of the day, cinema is entertainment for millions of people, but for me it's expression.

The movie medium will eventually take its place as art because there is no other medium of interest to so many people.