I Don't How I Can Describe The

Art Is Not A Substitute Religion: It Is A Religion (in The True Sense Of The Word: 'binding Back', 'binding' To The Unknowable, Transcending Reason, Transcendent Being). But The Church Is No Longer Adequate As A Means Of Affording Experience Of The Transcendental, And Of Making Religion Real - And So Art Has Been Transformed From A Means Into The Sole Provider Of Religion: Which Means Religion Itself.

Theory Has Nothing To Do With A Work Of Art. Pictures Which Are Interpretable, And Which Contain A Meaning, Are Bad Pictures. A Picture Presents Itself As The Unmanageable, The Illogical, The Meaningless. It Demonstrates The Endless Multiplicity Of Aspects; It Takes Away Our Certainty, Because It Deprives A Thing Of Its Meaning And Its Name. It Shows Us The Thing In All The Manifold Significance And Infinite Variety That Preclude The Emergence Of Any Single Meaning And View.

I Am Ridiculously Old-fashioned.

I'm Never Really Sure What That Word Means, But However Inaccurately I Use It, 'classical' Was Always My Ideal, As Long As I Can Remember, And Something Of That Has Always Stayed With Me, To This Day. Of Course, There Were Difficulties, Because In Comparison To My Ideal, I Didn't Even Come Close.

I Was A Student, And As Such You Generally Rely On Prior Models Of How To Make Art, But These Were Not Satisfying. Then I Discovered In Photos What Had Been Missing In Paintings; Namely That They Make A Terrific Variety Of Statements And Have Great Substance. That Is What I Wanted To Convey To Paintings And Apply To It.