Seth MacFarlane Quotes

I have generally found that persons who had studied painting least were the best judges of it.

The Art Snob will stand back from a picture at some distance, his head cocked slightly to one side

Art is always good. It just depends if you like or not.

When I see a new artist I give myself a lot of time to reflect and decide whether it's art or not.

Just as the unmusical ear is not competent to judge music, so it is likewise with pictures, whether they are paintings, drawings or photos. Only a sensitive and trained eye gives us the right to judge.

Absolute catholicity of taste is not without its dangers. It is only an auctioneer who should admire all schools of art.

The picture waits for my verdict; it is not to command me, but I am to settle its claim to praise.

Unless you are a born connoisseur of art, you will not be able to judge by yourself why certain art is superior to other art.

We have no other means of recognising a work of art than our feeling for it.

The art market is global now, and there's becoming more of an international consensus about what constitutes good art.

I think in any work of art, there always will be randomness about what is good, what is bad.

He knows all about art, but he doesn't know what he likes.

The role of a museum of modern art is to make a good selection and identify what we believe to be the coming movements, and that requires taste.

I agree that Ruskin has done much harm to counter balance much good in giving people the trick of talking about Art instead of really doing a little of it to enable them to understand.

There's a point where art is not subjective, and my example for that is Picasso. If you don't like Picasso, that's your problem.

I don't very much enjoy looking at paintings in general. I know too much about them. I take them apart.

Twombly, frankly, was an acquired taste. I was not in love with Twombly the first time I saw one of his paintings.

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.

Yes, 85 percent of the art you see isn't any good. But everyone has a different opinion about which 85 percent is bad. That in turn creates fantastically unstable interplay and argument.

There are so many reactions to art that make sense to me - but 'ick' means something.

Two of my favorite artists are Josh Smith and Joe Bradley. But I argued against them for years, until I grew to love them and felt stupid for my immediate reaction towards their work.

You are just as qualified as any expert to make a judgment and have a feeling or a response to any work of art.

To me, a critic is some loser who has no idea... someone with an opinion. We all have opinions. No offense, but what makes them dictate what is cool and what is not.

I don't know a single collector or museum director who says: 'Oh, he's on a list, so I think I'll buy something of his.' The people who buy my art put a little more thought into it than that.

People go into a gallery, and they're afraid to express their opinions about art. No one's afraid to say, 'Keanu Reeves was bad in that movie.' We see so many films that we can tell who's faking it. But with art, we can't always tell.