I think that if you don't like something and it's not easy, you shouldn't be doing it.

I don't think the government should touch art. Governments are risk averse. They encourage risk-averse personalities to be artists.

Out of sheer perversity, I followed beauty where it lead, into the silence.

I hate all that woozy political and psychotherapeutic crap applied to books and art.

In my experience, you always think you know what you're doing; you always think you can explain, but you always discover, years later, that you didn't and you couldn't. This leads me to suspect that the principal function of human reason is to rationalize what your lizard brain demands of you. That's my idea.

Art has political consequences, which is to say, it reorganizes society and creates constituencies of people around it.

As my friend Jeremy Gilbert-Rolfe has argued persuasively, there is an element of positivity in the visible world, and in color particularly, that totally eludes the historicity of language, with its protocols of absence and polarity. The color red, as an attribute of the world, is always there. It is something other than the absence of yellow and blue--and, thus, when that red becomes less red, it becomes more one or the other. It never exists in a linguistic condition of degradation or excess that must necessarily derive from our expectations.