Bell Hooks Quotes

Some people think big audiences are crass and that, say, a comedy that appeals to a wide audience is pandering. Other people would argue that you could say that about Moliere.

If it's good art, it's good.

As a longtime fan of talk radio, I'm very worried about the low opinion that conservative hosts and callers have of the American artist. Art is portrayed as a scam, a rip-off and snow job pushed by snobbish elites.

I feel that all good art is powerful and simple.

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.

My argument would be that I don't think there is much that's genuinely political art that is good art.

We believed that there's no such thing as good art or bad art. Art is art. If it's bad, it's something else. It was a much, much harder line in the '50s and '60s than it is now, because the idea of art education didn't exist - they didn't have a fine arts program when I was a kid.

I'm not a snob... there's room for entertainment that reaches a lot of people and can be really good, but you don't just have to be one kind of actor.

I really think there's no difference between an art piece made by a man and one made by a woman. Is it a good art piece or a bad art piece? Of course, if you're female, you're maybe dealing with different issues.

Great art - or good art - is when you look at it, experience it and it stays in your mind. I don't think conceptual art and traditional art are all that different.

The concept of commercialism in the fashion and art world is looked down upon. You know, just to think, 'What amount of creativity does it take to make something that masses of people like?' And, 'How does creativity apply across the board?'

Big films help your reach a wider audience, and doing independent films keeps your artistic side happy.

Money messes up everything. It ruins art. The second you start putting price tags on this stuff, it's... Art isn't for just the wealthy. It's for everybody to enjoy.

Publishers, theatrical managers, and critics ask not for the quality inherent in creative art, but will it meet with a good sale, will it suit the palate of the people? Alas, this palate is like a dumping ground; it relishes anything that needs no mental mastication. As a result, the mediocre, the ordinary, the commonplace represents the chief literary output.

Art is amoral; so is life. For me there are no obscene pictures or books; there are only poorly conceived and poorly executed ones.

There's not much high and low culture any more: there's just mingling streams of art and what matters is whether it's good art or bad art.

Artists are free to push boundaries to make art. But when pushing boundaries is their only aim, the result is usually bad art.

Is there really any relationship between artists' personal conduct and their art? Certainly not.

Art is subjective and, as an artiste, if our artistic work is not appreciated by the majority, it hurts.

Good art doesn't really have an expiration date on it.

There's no making art for art's sake. You've got to make the best art you can.

I think people should just make art and let the art speak for itself.

Of course, you have to think of the audience. You cannot make an obtuse film that only appeals to a small niche section of the audience.

I think that there's a difference between being an entertainer and being an artist.

There's nothing in Hollywood that's inherently detrimental to good art. I think that's a fallacy that we've created because we frame the work that way too overtly. 'This is Hollywood.' 'This isn't Hollywood.' It's like, 'No, this is actually all Hollywood.' People are just framing them differently.