As an artist, it's been clear that the price of art has nothing to do with you, it has to do with an idea of what the market will tolerate.

I remain interested in the potential of art, except I've always been more struck by applied modernism than high modernism. It's partly because of feminist theory and being brought up in the '70s, with questioning who is speaking, and why, and what authority they're carrying.

No one born in the 1950s took much interest in my generation, and all we've done is try to fix it by talking to the people who came after us. I don't hang out with anyone who is 10 years older than I am, but I hang out with a lot of people who are 10 years younger.

Lying on top of a building, the clouds looked no nearer than when I was lying on the street.

The biggest problem for my generation is that people who were born years before us have no concept of us at all. There's a massive gap. I don't know why, but we were really like orphans. Those people competed against us, they hated us and fought for things, and yet they had no interest in our work.

People think that the art market is about opportunists and hedge-fund managers getting broken art, but what really happened is that there was a new configuration of bourgeois values in the U.S. and an acceptance among the bourgeoisie of contemporary art as an idea. I think that bourgeois people are horrible.

What people in the U.S. have to understand is that there is sometimes a deep political content in my work that's rooted in the postwar reconfiguration in Europe. I'm still a foreigner in America. I'm someone who's bringing nuanced stories from somewhere else that will always be harder to take.