Art Shows Us How To See Things

Experience Has Proved That There Is No Difference Between A So-called Realist Painting - Of A Landscape, For Example - And An Abstract Painting. They Both Have More Or Less The Same Effect On The Observer.

The Urge To Break With A Tradition Is Only Appropriate When You're Dealing With An Outdated, Troublesome Tradition: I Never Really Thought About That Because I Take The Old-fashioned Approach Of Equating Tradition With Value (which May Be A Failing). But Whatever The Case, Positive Tradition Can Also Provoke Opposition If It's Too Powerful, Too Overwhelming, Too Demanding. That Would Basically Be About The Human Side Of Wanting To Hold Your Own.

My Pictures Are Devoid Of Objects; Like Objects, They Are Themselves Objects. This Means That They Are Devoid Of Content, Significance Or Meaning, Like Objects Or Trees, Animals, People Or Days, All Of Which Are There Without A Reason, Without A Function And Without A Purpose. This Is The Quality That Counts. Even So, There Are Good And Bad Pictures.

But It Is Also Untrue That I Have Nothing Specific In Mind. As With My Landscapes: I See Countless Landscapes, Photograph Barely 1 In 100,000, And Paint Barely 1 In 100 Of Those That I Photograph. I Am Therefore Seeking Something Quite Specific; From This I Conclude That I Know What I Want.

Maybe We Didn't Even Have A Chance. The Message Of American Pop Art Was So Powerful And So Optimistic. But It Was Also Very Limited, And That Led Us To Believe That We Could Somehow Distance Ourselves From It And Communicate A Different Intention.