In my eyes, making art is very often about something that you don't know.

What interested me the most was that when I [traveled to Europe] I knew what Joseph Beuys was doing, he knew what I was doing, and we both, we just started to talk. How did I know what Daniel Buren was doing, and to an extent, he knew exactly what I was doing? How did everybody know? It's an interesting thing. I'm still fascinated by it because, why is it now, with the Internet and everything else, you get whole groups of artists who have chosen to be regional? They really are only with the people they went to school with.

The only art I'm interested in is the art I don't understand right away. If you understand it right away it really has no use except as nostalgia.

I'm not against art fairs, in fact this last one I even made money, but the concept is really disgusting. If you're that rich to be able to hang out for two or three days, you're certainly rich enough to get on a plane and go to Munich or Düsseldorf or wherever and see somebody's real show instead of this stuff just stacked around.

Art history is fine. I mean, that's a discipline. Art history is art history, and you start from the beginning and you end up in artist in time. But art is a little bit different. Art is a conversation. And if there's no conversation, what the hell is it about?

Once you know about a work of mine you own it. There's no way I can climb inside somebody's head and remove it.

Art's supposed to build logic structures.