My poems mean what people take them to mean.
If poems very different from my own bring pleasure to a group of readers, who am I to say that the poems should have been written differently?
Even if I set out to make a film about a fillet of sole, it would be about me.
But I'm not objective when I'm acting.
Yes, 85 percent of the art you see isn't any good. But everyone has a different opinion about which 85 percent is bad. That in turn creates fantastically unstable interplay and argument.
I've done 33 Sherlock Holmes stories and bits of them are all right. But the definitive Sherlock Holmes is really in everyone's head. No actor can fit into that category because every reader has his own ideal.
Active creation is conceived as a transitive action in which there is always presupposed an object about which the agent is concerned; it is virtually but not formally transitive because it makes, not presupposes, an object.
Great writers probably shouldn't be ranked, at least not by me.
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.
It may seem that with the new breed of actors - Arjun, Varun, Siddharth, Ayushmann, Sushant - there is suddenly too much of a hustle to make space for oneself, but acting is subjective. And we motivate one another.
Music is really nothing if you think about it - it only becomes something when somebody listens to it. And then it becomes uncontrollable.
Defining art is huge; I feel like it's such a subjective thing. It's more like what's not art. You know what I mean? I think there can be an art in the way people live their lives, and art can be a gift someone gives to somebody.
Every time we do anything artistic, the way it's perceived is always going to be different from the way that we had intended it to be because it's subjective.
I compare Stephen Sondheim with humor, because humor is unanalyzable. You can't analyze humor. You just have to get through it.
