Arthur Miller Quotes

Art is art. Politics is politics. It's very hard to get them together.

It is very easy to make clear what you want a film to say, but I did not wish to engage in overt propaganda, even for the right cause. I wanted to create an experience through the films, something where people could have the freedom of their own response to them.

I think there is a debate in the arts about, you know, whether we must strive for art for art's sake, and you know, kind of try to keep political debate out of our work. And to that I say, I'd like you to show me an example of, you know, this so-called apolitical art. I don't think there's any such thing.

The truth is that sometimes art may not exactly reflect one's personal politics, but the story, the drama, the thing you're trying to say, might want to go in a certain direction, and while it may seem like it has resonance with things that are happening topically, you kind of want the world you're creating to have its own internal logic.

I don't feel that as an artist my job is to offer PR propaganda, whether for the good or for the bad.

I will not have the Federal Theater used politically.

All political art is bad – all good art is political.

In the world today all culture, all literature and art belong to definite classes and are geared to definite political lines. There is in fact no such thing as art for art's sake, art that stands above classes or art that is detached from or independent of politics.

I like to make broader strokes with politics in my work.

Art can be political, but when it becomes politicized, the purity is ruined.

We as artists cannot be politicians. We as artists can only be truth-tellers.

I think, for some artists, the fear of taking on a political identity stems from not wanting to be pigeonholed as political actor or a political musician. It becomes this thing where somehow your art can no longer exist on its own and be multifaceted.

A lot of artists say, I'm not political. People are afraid of this word.

I never start anything with a really overt, political, or even exactly artistic mission statement.

If art is singular expression, then by nature, the best art is controversial. But when art stirs debate for reasons besides its artistic integrity, that's when things get bent.

There was a point I could have just churned out the spot and spin paintings for ever and laughed all the way to the bank.

There's obviously nothing wrong with selling your art - only an idiot with a trust fund would tell you otherwise. But it's confusing to know how far you should take it.

Political art expresses the cliches you agree with, unlike propaganda, which expresses the cliches you don't.

Music is the language of the heart, and conservatives always screw it up.

What I do not want to write is didactic political tracts.

I took a political stance early on, but I don't think my work is overtly political. I respond to events.

Politics is politics; art is art. If you play a political role, you have to stop being an artist.

Making art in America is sort of a political statement in and of itself. It's not the best environment for that sometimes.

I wouldn't say no to other kinds of musical opportunities. I guess that it just depends on what it was or what it required me to do, and if I felt that it compromised my own soul.

All literatures can have political uses and misuses. Sometimes politics can enhance, sometimes it can get in the way of imaginative literature...