But what does interest me is the notion that if you do a lot of work it means there's a potential for other people to understand that a lot of things are possible with a sustained effort and that the broadening of experiences is possible and I think that's all art can be.
I think different people have different problems and different relations to the exhibition of their work.
I think this, I think basically I'm not interested in people following my work or making work like my work.
If you get it out into the urban field it's going to be used or misused but it'll also probably provide a way of people acknowledging what the aesthetic is about because people have to confront it every day.
On the other hand, if there's an underlying core of poetry that I go to, I go to the sea. I've lived on the sea all my life. I live on the sea in Cape Breton.
I think if you want to make art, at some point you have to suspend judgment, and you have to involve youself with play and not worry about the outcome.
Don't start telling me buildings are works of art, because I don't buy it.
They've also, the government's decided now, what sexual content is.
The thing about coming back to the Bay Area, it's like coming home for me.
And certainly the history of public sculpture has been disastrous but that doesn't mean it ought not to continue and the only way it even has a chance to continue is if the work gets out into the public.
I think you always have to find where the boundary is in relation to the context in order to be able to kind of articulate how you want the space to interact with the viewer.
I thought Out of Action was better as a catalogue than the honeycomb because the honeycomb was like walking into one compartment and then another compartment.
Work out of your work. Don't work out of anybody else's work.
Space, as my work evolved, really became my subject.
But I don't think of any particular viewer in mind other than myself.