Alain de Botton Quotes

What's the point of art, of any art, if it doesn't let us see with a little bit of objectivity where we are?

Since the beginning of the 20th century, the public's relationship to art has been weakened by a profound institutional reluctance to address the question of what art is for. This is a question that has, quite unfairly, come to feel impatient, illegitimate, and a little impudent.

I believe that art is a tool and that, like all tools, it has functions. I also think it is important to know what the tool is for so that we can better know how and when to use it.

For most of us, art is supposed to do something more than simply mirror the confusions of the world.

Variety is more than a means of avoiding boredom, since art is more than an entertainment of the senses.

Art is not an end in itself, but a means of addressing humanity.

Art evokes emotion. It doesn't have to be a thing of beauty.

I think that films or indeed any art work should be made in a way that they are infinitely viewable; so that you could go back to it time and time again, not necessarily immediately but over a space of time, and see new things in it, or new ways of looking at it.

The value of art is in the observer.

Art is not meant to change the world.

We want people to experience art and think about it. The art reflects our time, it is about our culture.

What makes people the world over stand in line for Van Gogh is not that they will see beautiful pictures but that in an indefinable way they will come away feeling better human beings. And that is exactly what Van Gogh hoped for.

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

If art has a purpose, it is to interpret life, reproduce it in fresh visions.

Great art should be shown with great excitement.

I don't believe that art is just for entertainment. I want to create art that is meaningful in some way.

Should graffiti be judged on the same level as modern art? Of course not: It's way more important than that.

Art matters.

To me, at its best, that's what art should do, perform both the emotional and intellectual function.

The idea that one might use art for 'instrumental' reasons tends to set off alarm bells at the heart of the cultural elite, who contend that it's not a pill, that it shouldn't be asked to perform some specific function, especially something as egocentric as to 'cheer you up' or to 'make you a more empathetic person.'

The claims I'm making for art are simply the claims that we naturally make around music or around poetry. We're much more relaxed around those art forms. We're willing to ask, 'How could this find a place in my heart?'

It never ceases to amaze me how art can touch and inspire people.

Art is an irreplaceable way of understanding and expressing the world.

When art becomes merely shock value, our sense of humanity is slowly degraded.

And if out of a million visitors there is even one to whom art means something, that is enough to justify museums.