I think most of the art now is involved with a denial of any kind of absolute morality, or general morality.

The older painting - well, it does have an effect all at once, I suppose, but it's of a lesser intensity than a lot of the American work in the last ten or fifteen years.

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

Design has to work. Art does not.

Art and architecture - all the arts - do not have to exist in isolation.

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.