Yes, We Were Amazed When That Happened.

Theory Has Nothing To Do With A Work Of Art. Pictures Which Are Interpretable, And Which Contain A Meaning, Are Bad Pictures. A Picture Presents Itself As The Unmanageable, The Illogical, The Meaningless.

To Talk About Paintings Is Not Only Difficult But Perhaps Pointless Too. You Can Only Express In Words What Words Are Capable Of Expressing-- What Language Can Communicate. Painting Has Nothing To Do With That.

It Was Not Possible For Us To Produce The Same Optimism And The Same Kind Of Humour Or Irony. Actually, It Was Not Irony. Lichtenstein Is Not Ironic But He Does Have A Special Kind Of Humour. That's How I Could Describe It: Humour And Optimism. For Polke And Me, Everything Was More Fragmented. But How It Was Broken Up Is Hard To Describe.

Perhaps The Choice Is A Negative One, In That I Was Trying To Avoid Everything That Touched On Well-known Issues - Or Any Issues At All, Whether Painterly, Social Or Aesthetic. I Tried To Find Nothing Too Explicit, Hence All The Banal Subjects; And Then, Again, I Tried To Avoid Letting The Banal Turn Into My Issue And My Trademark. So It's All Evasive Action, In A Way.

Nature/structure. There Is No More To Say. In My Pictures I Reduce To That. But 'reduce' Is The Wrong Word, Because These Are Not Simplifications. I Can't Verbalize What I Am Working On: To Me, It Is Many-layered By Definition; It Is What Is More Important, What Is More True.