Albert Camus Quotes

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.

Art never harms itself by keeping aloof from the social problems of the day: rather, by so doing, it more completely realises for us that which we desire.

The only obligation any artist can have is to himself. His work means nothing, otherwise. It has no meaning.

Those who are concerned with the arts are often asked questions, not always sympathetic ones, about the use or value of what they are doing. It is probably impossible to answer such questions directly, or at any rate to answer the people who ask them.

Fine art, that exists for itself alone, is art in a final state of impotence. If nobody, including the artist, acknowledges art as a means of knowing the world, then art is relegated to a kind of rumpus room of the mind and the irresponsibility of the artist and the irrelevance of art to actual living becomes part and parcel of the practice of art.

My primary thing is to make a painting, not necessarily to make a painting to sell for gazillions of dollars, but just to make a painting.

Deliver me from writers who say the way they live doesn't matter. I'm not sure a bad person can write a good book, If art doesn't make us better, then what on earth is it for.

I think every artist should follow their vision; their hearts is what they need to reveal, not something that society is looking out for. That said though, I think also artists have, continuously good artists, have been good for their times.

I mean, art for art's sake is ridiculous. Art is for the sake of one's needs.

The deeper I get into my life as a musician, I'm discovering that it becomes less and less about other people, and more about what I want to do. And that's a good place to be.

I don't think I'm making any great statements, and I certainly don't think I'm making art.

I'm not an artist who has an agenda that's set by the work.

People think it's suspect and self-indulgent to make art, and I don't think that's true. Some people think you should be busy making something that you can sell in the marketplace, and if nobody wants to buy it, it must be crap. And that's not true.

There's always been an ongoing struggle between commerce and art.

Of what use were the arts if they were only the reproduction and the imitation of life?

Writers want to summarize: What does this mean? What did we learn from this? That's a very 19th-century way of thinking about art, because it assumes that it should make our lives better or teach us something.

Art is something to be proud of. Art is no compromise.

Today a picture has value if it makes a lot of money. Myself, I declare I want to make a picture to lose money. Really! I want to lose money.

I believe art has to take responsibility but it should not give up being art.

The opera always loses money. That's as it should be. Opera has no business making money.

The worst state of affairs is when science begins to concern itself with art.

I am interested in art as a means of living a life; not as a means of making a living.

If my art has nothing to do with people's pain and sorrow, what is 'art' for?

The arts are a response to our individuality and our nature and help to shape our identity. The arts are not a frill and should not be treated as such.

The second you feel a political imperative, it destroys your art.