I do not know exactly why, but it seems to me that images do not belong to anybody but are instead there, at the disposal of all.

My ideas are all the same but look different.

It's in our nature. If you are a plumber, there is an objective way to establish whether you put together a great piping system or not. Art is a bit more slippery than that. So, when you fill a gallery with dirt and someone comes along waving wads of bills, it's difficult not to take them because they become a tangible acknowledgement that what you've been doing actually makes sense.

I'm not saying the 1970s was a golden age - I don't believe such a thing exists in art . . . It would be like talking about a golden age of science. But it's true that those were slightly more ideological times, and the relevance of artists wasn't established by their CVs but by their work.

Part of the blame can be put at the artists' door, too - no question. But I see our involvement more as a consequence. When there is too much money at stake, the whole system gets corrupted. Artists can be very vulnerable to these mechanisms.

I do not know exactly why, but it seems to me that images do not belong to anybody but are instead there, at the disposal of all.

I tend not to work with a specific person in mind. Art is a matter of statistics. It's not about individuals. It's about people.