I don't really have a historical overview of my work at all. I'm not an art historian. I don't see that there's this period and that period.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I'm not as much a history person as an art person, but I mean, you can read history through art.
There were various turning points, but the main one at the beginning was that I was going off to do another degree in the history of art. I would have ended up as some art historian at Sotheby's or something.
Believe it or not, there were very few books on art, years ago.
I wasn't an academic looking in books for ideas. But I educated myself about historical work that was similar to mine, to provide a frame of reference that wasn't the usual frame of reference of the New York art world and Europe.
Art history looks at art works and the people who have created them.
Because I'm an art historian, I have some experience of writing that comes out of close attention. That's what really art history is. You're looking at something very closely, and you try to write in a meticulous way about it.
I remember a period where my publisher said to me, 'Look, your historical work is selling much better than your contemporary work, so please give us more historicals.'
The history of art is the history of revivals.
My work, in a certain way, got started in 1996 when I did an exhibition of thirteen paintings that were solely based on fashion imagery.
I do not exactly remember at what period I started my museum which absorbed so much of my time.
No opposing quotes found.