There is a primacy of each individual object. And we'll see! That's the whole point of making sculpture, to present a question in a physical form to people.

Once you know about a work of mine you own it. There's no way I can climb inside somebody's head and remove it.

All art is made from anger.

Like the people that in the 60s or 70s claimed the end of painting - all they did was open up a whole new branch for painting. Happily, it doesn't work. It's not a reason for art. Closing something out is not a reason for something to exist.

The only art I'm interested in is the art I don't understand right away. If you understand it right away it really has no use except as nostalgia.

In my eyes, making art is very often about something that you don't know.

I stopped painting, not because I didn't like painting the sensuality of it was fun. But I wasn't able to get to the point I wanted to.

Skills come with age, but wisdom, I doubt it very, very much.

People, buying my stuff, can take it wherever they go and can rebuild it if they choose. If they keep it in their heads, that's fine too. They don't have to buy it to have it - they can just have it by knowing it.

There's a radical change in the relationship with the human being and society. Art now is an open conversation with the society. Previously there was a necessity for a little bit of screaming and shouting just to get it into the conversation.

I'm not against art fairs, in fact this last one I even made money, but the concept is really disgusting. If you're that rich to be able to hang out for two or three days, you're certainly rich enough to get on a plane and go to Munich or Düsseldorf or wherever and see somebody's real show instead of this stuff just stacked around.

There are people who speculate at objects. I don't think that makes them evil or not evil. It doesn't matter in order to speculate, it has to be made public. Once it's made public, it's functioned is art.

Art that imposes conditions - human or otherwise - on the receiver for its appreciation in my eyes constitutes aesthetic fascism.

We were brought up in a world which was based on Aristotle. Science-wise and everything, that's really quite exciting and you learn a lot. There was one problem: there were parallel realities. And in a parallel reality, there's always one reality that's the prime and the second is always a secondary. And everything's a reflection of something else.

Quantum physics - the idea that there is more than one reality going on at the same time in the same place. We live in a concentric society, and we'll have to make our decisions, cake as pie, as pending resolve. It's really and truly - I don't know if as will count any longer.

I think there should be a reworking of the value structure of art. The value is when the artist makes a first engagement with society. That work has the most value. That is the function of the artist. That result.

Artists try to ask questions, and within our society, unless there are artists, those questions don't get asked. And everybody blames the market.

As nice as some of the booths are, it's not the same thing. It's a pity for young artists, because one of the things that a younger artist can look forward to is an emerging dealer who has a space that they can take over and build whatever will suit whatever aesthetic they find themselves in. In an art fair, you turn yourself into an object.

Now professional seems to be whoever you went to school with. It constitutes your nuclear world. And that's the fault of the teachers it's not the fault of the young artist.