Somehow the greater the public opposition to the health care bill the more determined they seem to force it on us anyway. Their attitude shows Washington at its very worst - the presumption that they know best and they're going to get their way whether the American people like it or not.

So at a time in which the media give the public everything it wants and desires maybe art should adopt a much more aggressive attitude towards the public. I myself am very much inclined to take this position.

The phenomenon of home schooling is a wonderful example of the American can-do attitude. Growing numbers of parents have become disenchanted with government-run public schools. Many parents have simply taken matters into their own hands literally.

It is precisely the purpose of the public opinion generated by the press to make the public incapable of judging to insinuate into it the attitude of someone irresponsible uninformed.

The biggest challenge is how to affect public attitudes and make people care.

The greater the decrease in the social significance of an art form the sharper the distinction between criticism and enjoyment by the public. The conventional is uncritically enjoyed and the truly new is criticized with aversion.

In an era ruled by materialism and unstable geopolitics art must be restored to the center of public education.

The public history of modern art is the story of conventional people not knowing what they are dealing with.

Kinkade's paintings are worthless schmaltz and the lamestream media that love him are wrong. However I'd love to see a museum mount a small show of Kinkade's work. I would like the art world and the wider world to argue about him in public out in the open.

Outside museums in noisy public squares people look at people. Inside museums we leave that realm and enter what might be called the group-mind getting quiet to look at art.