I mean, part of the justification for art is art history, the fact that you're part of this tradition. You can't really operate outside of it. So looking for what this work is really about, if I look at Velázquez, if I look at Las Meninas or The Tapestry Weavers [1657] or something and really study it and try to figure out what that painting is really about, then I find relationships between what I'm trying to do and what he was doing.

I was never that big a rock-and-roll, rock guy. I really preferred jazz, you know, that kind of thing.

Developing your own style became something very interesting, very important to me.

I was a filmmaker. I made movies. I made films. And I always took photos and made films, always from the beginning.

Any artwork is part of something larger, grander and, you know, the situation that it's in is very important.

The idea of words and photos was something that appealed to me.

People who look at art don't really - don't go with the artist. They don't sort of accept what he or she has done and kind of go with it. There are always - either there's too much color or not enough color, either it's not conceptual enough or it's too conceptual. In other words, most criticism isn't what the viewer expected that it would do based on what they think you have done and that's good as far as I'm concerned.