Pollock looks unusual and radical even now.
I think there's very little interesting in art that is not transgressive in some way. And I don't think that's a very revolutionary thing to say.
In the early '60s, it was still a fairly subversive thing, though, to say that you should take a painting, cut it, set it on fire, step on it, hammer nails into it.
Punk was such an exciting time because there were no rules. You could go and knock on Sun Ra's door - and he was in the phonebook, under Ra!
The most wonderful time to be in the art world was in the sixties, because it wasn't a business - there was no business of doing art.
And that Newman wasn't, and yet to me Pollock is just as radical and unlike Expressionism as Newman.
I think music has gone through a period of something very severe, rather radical, rather the way painting did with cubism.
I want to do just, like, regular art. Whatever is made today on canvas goes up against all of art history. It's the most radical thing.
My father was a painter and an anarchist, always getting in trouble for his performance art.
I think the avant-garde often hides itself in the highly incomprehensible because they are frustrated that the real world is so boring.
Ah, if I were dictator I'd have poets throwing bombs!
To me art is a form of manifest revolt, total and complete.
The more far-out artists, the better.
The 1970s seemed particularly playful. People were trying to make work that couldn't be sold.
Contemporary art hates you.
The avant-garde makes more sense to me.
In order to create it is necessary to destroy; and the agent of destruction in society is the poet. I believe that the poet is necessarily an anarchist, and that he must oppose all organized conceptions of the State, not only those which we inherit from the past, but equally those which are imposed on people in the name of the future.
The avant garde is so narcissistic.
If you really want to have an anarchist experience, make a movie with a studio.
I don't want to paint rainbows: I want to make art that disturbs identity and challenges authority.
I'm really into the irony of writing vaguely radical plays that instantly win huge establishment awards. It's really amusing.
We have this idea of artists being on the fringe and being debauched and strange. I don't think that people who commit themselves to classical arts should be exempt from that.
I am not very extreme in my life. But I'm very attracted to art that works with extremes and works with limits, that transgresses limits and transcends limits and crosses borders and has a certain boldness.
I think it's much more radical to see and show things as they look instead of making them somehow subversive through alienation.
