|
+ I didn't want to get into something which is
played out and narrow. I want to do as I like,
invent my own interests.
+ 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. But actually there may be those couple of
things and several new things to which they aren't
paying attention. These may be quite complex.
+ Pollock
is not an ordinary painter; he's not an Expressionist
in the usual sense. He's always been pulled in
with them, but I think he's a much more radical
artist.. more than de Kooning. As far as the second
generation goes, I think they missed the whole
boat on his nature and importance.
+ 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. You're only dealing with whatever
you know, which is a very small part of it and
later on it'll look like it has something to do
with the period.
+ The geometry is partly by default. I never worked
that way; I never had anything to do with the
usual geometric art. I didn't know that much about
European development along that line--neo-plasticism,
constructivism, or any of those things.
|
bookmark
