I'm Not At All Sure

Society Takes What It Wants. The Artist Himself Does Not Count, Because There Is No Actual Existence For The Work Of Art. The Work Of Art Is Always Based On The Two Poles Of The Onlooker And The Maker, And The Spark That Comes From The Bipolar Action Gives Birth To Something - Like Electricity. But The Onlooker Has The Last Word, And It Is Always Posterity That Makes The Masterpiece. The Artist Should Not Concern Himself With This, Because It Has Nothing To Do With Him.

Since I Found That One Could Make A Case Shadow From A Three-dimensional Thing, Any Object Whatsoever - Just As The Projecting Of The Sun On The Earth Makes Two Dimensions - I Thought That By Simple Intellectual Analogy, The Fourth Dimension Could Project An Object Of Three Dimensions, Or, To Put It Another Way, Any Three-dimensional Object, Which We See Dispassionately, Is A Projection Of Something Four-dimensional, Something We Are Not Familiar With.

To All Appearances The Artist Acts Like A Mediumistic Being Who, From The Labyrinth Beyond Time And Space, Seeks His Way Out To A Clearing. If We Give The Attributes Of A Medium To The Artist, We Must Then Deny Him The State Of Consciousness On The Aesthetic Plane About What He Is Doing Or Why He Is Doing It. All This Decisions In The Artistic Execution Of The Work Rest With Pure Intuition And Cannot Be Translated Into A Self-analysis, Spoken Or Written, Or Even Thought Out.

As Soon As We Start Putting Our Thoughts Into Words And Sentences Everything Gets Distorted, Language Is Just No Damn Good—i Use It Because I Have To, But I Don’t Put Any Trust In It. We Never Understand Each Other.

The Word 'art' Interests Me Very Much. If It Comes From Sanskrit, As I've Heard, It Signifies 'making.