T. S. Eliot Quotes

I don't know why people see the things that they do. I wouldn't pay to see them, they don't touch me or move me in any way.

Different people get different things out of the images. It doesn't matter what it's about, all that matters is how it makes you feel.

As a consumer, I don't create art, but I think whatever the message is, art has to touch you.

In the finished article, the only thing that is important is whether it moves you or not. There is nothing else that is important at all.

ALL ART, OF COURSE, IS INTELLECTUAL, BUT FOR ME, ALL THE ARTS, AND CINEMA EVEN MORE SO, MUST ABOVE ALL BE EMOTIONAL AND ACT UPON THE HEART.

Paintings can make you cry and it's just **colored dirt**.

Music is only good sometimes.

Even if somebody wanted to tell me what one of my songs meant to him or her, I can't do it - I would be probably put to tears every time.

Whatever the raw material, the material itself is unimportant until it's catalyzed by emotional fervor. So in the ideal exchange between me and my listeners, they wouldn't 'figure out' my music. They would feel their pulse racing and the hair standing up on the backs of their necks.

When you walk past a painting in a museum, if it doesn't make you feel something, then it's probably a failure.

One way I judge music is whether it compels me to listen to it.

You listen to something like 'Beast Mode,' and it's almost like looking at a pretty painting.

You can make what you want. People care about what the artist has to say, what the sound is, and how it affects them.

I don't think it's right to define films as commercial or art house. What's important is that a film evokes a certain emotion when it's being watched.

Every time I read Erin Belieu work I'm pierced in that wonderful way poetry can.

The art of music is good, for the reason, among others, that it produces pleasure; but what proof is it possible to give that pleasure is good? If, then, it is asserted that there is a comprehensive formula, including all things which are in themselves good, and that whatever else is good, is not so as an end, but as a mean, the formula may be accepted or rejected, but is not a subject of what is commonly understood by proof.

Art is not about objects of high monetary exchange. It's about reasserting our firsthand experience in present time.

Don't you just love poetry that gives you a crinkly feeling up and down your back?

Isn't it curious how one has only to open a book of verse to realise immediately that it was written by a very fine poet, or else that it was written by someone who is not a poet at all. In the case of the former, the lines, the images, though they are inherent in each other, leap up and give one this shock of delight. In the case of the latter, they lie flat on the page, never having lived.

A work of art... is not a living thing... that walks or runs. But the making of a life. That which gives you a reaction. To some it is the wonder of man's fingers. To some it is the wonder of the mind. To some it is the wonder of technique. And to some it is how real it is. To some, how transcendent it is. Like the 5th Symphony, it presents itself with a feeling that you know it, if you have heard it once.

Bad art is never really enjoyed in the same sense in which good art is enjoyed. It is only "liked": it never startles, prostrates, and takes captive.

Great poetry needs no interpreter other than a responsive heart.

I always feel like when I've listened to a great song I know it, 'cuz it's the only time I'll ever get goosebumps or something like that.

Maybe this is a utopian view of art but I do believe that art can function as a vehicle, that it isn't just a cultural pursuit, something that happens in art galleries. Unless art is linked to experience and the fear and joy of that, it becomes mere icing on the cake.

Colors produce a spiritual vibration, the impression they create is important only as a step towards this vibration.