Somewhere a portion of contemporary art has to exist as an example of what the art and its context were meant to be.

You’re getting rid of the things that people used to think were essential to art. But that reduction is only incidental. I object to the whole reduction idea…if my work is reductionist it’s because it doesn’t have the elements that people thought should be there. But it has other elements I like.

Art and architecture - all the arts - do not have to exist in isolation.

I think most of the art now is involved with a denial of any kind of absolute morality, or general morality.

In terms of existing, everything is equal.

And then we moved to New Jersey and I went to the Art Students League.

Design has to work. Art does not.

The attitude and capacity of the factory, the old metal table and the new ideas of the wooden furniture quickly and naturally suggested the possibility of metal furniture.

The older painting - well, it does have an effect all at once, I suppose, but it's of a lesser intensity than a lot of the American work in the last ten or fifteen years.

If a chair or a building is not functional, if it appears to be only art, it is ridiculous.

It isn't necessary for a work to have a lot of things to look at, to compare, to analyze one by one, to contemplate. The thing as a whole, its quality whole, is what is interesting. The main things are alone and are more intense, clear and powerful.

Most art is fragile and some should be placed and never moved away.

Color, to continue had to occur in space.