I think that every so-called history book and film biography should be prefaced by the statement that what follows is the author's rendition of events and circumstances.

As with the Princess Di crash, which sent the media on the most insane feeding frenzy. From the moment of the crash, the pornography of sentiment never let up.

Warhol's images made sense to me, although I knew nothing at the time of his background in commercial art. To be honest, I didn't think about him a hell of a lot.

I feel uncomfortable with the term public art, because I'm not sure what it means. If it means what I think it does, then I don't do it. I'm not crazy about categories.

Images are made palpable, ironed flat by technology and, in turn, dictate the seemingly real through the representative.

I worked with someone else's photos; I cropped them in whatever way I wanted and put words on top of them. I knew how to do it with my eyes closed. Why couldn't that be my art?

What makes the production of my work so expensive? The whole installation thing - the construction, the objects, the technology. It really adds up.