It doesn't upset artists to find out that artists used lenses or mirrors or other aids, but it certainly does upset the art historians.

Ive said its a little bit like a magician performing for a convention of magicians... all the magicians in the audience watching this illusion-Do they see the illusion, or do they see the device that made the illusion? Probably they see a little of both.

I did some pastels and I did other pieces in which there was just basically one color per square, and then they would get bigger and I could get 2 or 3 colors into the square, and ultimately I just started making oil paintings.

I think most paintings are a record of the decisions that the artist made. I just perhaps make them a little clearer than some people have.

Painting is a lie. It's the most magic of all media, the most transcendent. It makes space where there is no space.

From my point of view, photography never got any better than it was in 1840.

Part of the joy of looking at art is getting in sync in some ways with the decision-making process that the artist used and the record that's embedded in the work.