One doesn't make art for other people, even though I am very concerned with the viewer.
I am Indian, and I'm proud of it. Indian life is mythologically rich and powerful.
My work is not about my life history. It's not about the story of my neurosis.
One does afford oneself the luxury to come into the studio and all day, every day, spend one's life making aesthetic propositions. What an immense luxury.
One can hardly be Indian and not know that almost every accent, which hand you eat your food with, has some deeper symbolic truth, reality.
Being an artist is a very long game. It is not a 10-year game. I hope I'll be around making art when I'm 80.
I, in the end, make art for myself.
One does not set out with the idea that I've just had a great idea and now I'm going to go and carry it out. Almost all art that's made like that doesn't go anywhere.
One of the great currents in the contemporary experience of art is that it seems to come out of the experience of the author.
I used to empty the studio out and throw stuff away. I now don't. There will be a whole series of dead ends that a year or two down the line I'll come back to.
The idea is that the object has a language unto itself.
A work will only have deep resonance if the kind of darkness I can generate is something that is resident in me already.
I'm not an artist who has an agenda that's set by the work.
Maybe the way we have learned to look has changed in the last 25 years, and the exotic is much more acceptable. There are many artists now, younger artists, who work out of the exotic.
One cannot set out to make a work that's spiritual. What is a contemporary iconography for the spiritual? Is it some fuzzy space?