Well, there's a morality in that you want your work to be good, I suppose.

Pollock looks unusual and radical even now.

Any combining, mixing, adding, diluting, exploiting, vulgarizing, or popularizing of abstract art deprives art of its essence and depraves the artist's artistic consciousness. Art is free, but it is not a free-for-all.

It isn't necessary for a work to have a lot of things to look at, to compare, to analyze one by one, to contemplate. The thing as a whole, its quality whole, is what is interesting. The main things are alone and are more intense, clear and powerful.

And that Newman wasn't, and yet to me Pollock is just as radical and unlike Expressionism as Newman.

If a chair or a building is not functional, if it appears to be only art, it is ridiculous.

It takes a great deal of time and thought to install work carefully. This should not always be thrown away. Most art is fragile and some should be placed and never moved again.