Most art is fragile and some should be placed and never moved away.
Usually when someone says a thing is too simple, they're saying that certain familiar things aren't there, and they're seeing a couple maybe that are left, which they count as a couple, that's all.
I recognize very much in Hopper that it does look like the United States; it looks like the 30's and my first impressions of everything, all of which I have to deal with and which gets mixed up in my work and probably gets mixed up in everybody else's work too.
I pay a lot of attention to how things are done and the whole activity of building something is interesting.
I think most of the art now is involved with a denial of any kind of absolute morality, or general morality.
Well, in any art there are a lot of technical things that you can get to like.
After all, the work isn't the point; the piece is.
Pollock looks unusual and radical even now.
I think some of the things I deal with Hopper probably has dealt with also, since it's somewhat the same environment and I have pretty strong reactions to what this country looks like. It looks pretty dull and spare, and you like this and dislike it and it's very complicated.
Well, its very exasperating when you can't get it right.
Well, I don't think anyone now would say that they're painting the state of the culture of America. I think that's too grand and pompous a thing for anybody to claim.
Building is just skilled labor, I suppose. It's a lot of work. I don't mind other people building them, but the way things go together and are made is interesting to me; I like that a lot.
I don't think geometric art is... I don't like to call it that. I don't think it's any more pure than pop art or anything else. It doesn't have anything to do with purity.
I haven't sufficient interest in objects or anything I can see around me to do what Oldenburg does.
They certainly aren't connected with the old geometric art. My work isn't geometric in that sense.
For un-subscribe please check the mail footer.