Generally, I Am Opposed To Painting Which

I’m Interested In Things Which Suggest The World Rather Than Express The Personality... The Most Conventional Thing, The Most Ordinary - It Seems To Me That Those Things Can Be Dealt With Without Having To Judge Them; They Seem To Me To Exist As Clear Facts, Not Involving Aesthetic Hierarchy.

Donald Judd Spoke Of A 'neutral' Surface, But What Is Meant? Neutrality Must Involve Some Relationship (to Other Ways Of Painting, Thinking?) He Would Have To Include These In His Work To Establish The Neutrality Of That Surface. He Also Used 'non' Or 'not' - Expressive - This Is An Early Problem - A Negative Solution Or - Expression Of New Sense - Which Can Help One Into - What One Has Not Known. 'neutral' Expresses An Intention.

Marcel Duchamp, One Of This Century's Pioneers, Moved His Work Through The Retinal Boundaries Which Had Been Established With Impressionism Into A Field Where Language, Thought And Vision Act Upon One Another. There It Changed Form Through A Complex Interplay Of New Mental And Physical Materials, Heralding Many Of The Technical, Mental And Visual Details To Be Found In More Recent Art... He Declared That He Wanted To Kill Art ("for Myself") But His Persistent Attempts To Destroy Frames Of Reference Altered Our Thinking, Established New Units Of Thought, A "new Thought For That Object."

Working Is Very Important To Me. Probably Because As A Child I Was Taught That Work Was Good. I Don’t Believe It Intellectually But I Identify With That Idea. So It’s Probably Just Like A Habit.

I Have No Ideas About What The Paintings Imply About The World. I Don't Think That's A Painter's Business. He Just Paints Paintings Without A Conscious Reason.