I think if it's not monumental, there's no point.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It appears to be monumental only because it's art.
I had a monumental idea this morning, but I didn't like it.
I think of a monument as being symbolic and for the people and therefore rhetorical, not honest, not personal.
To me, the drive for monumentality is as inbred as the desire for food and sex, regardless of how we denigrate it. Monuments differ in different periods. Each age has its own.
You see, greatness for a state doesn't require some huge monument for all to see. It is not a journey to a particular destination - but a commitment to follow a course of constant and never-ending improvement.
After the first million, money isn't important.
I always look for... hopefully look for a challenge. And you're always looking for the next summit to hit. Even if it's a personal one. It needn't be some great sense of monumental... It just has to be important to you and big enough and special enough and individual enough that you get up for it. And that can be anything.
Owning great landmarks such as the Empire State Building or Trump Tower or the General Motors Building or the Plaza Hotel - there are certain just spectacular landmarks - it's an honor; it's really an honor.
All through history, a nation or a civilization's enduring glory is articulated by its mega constructions - the pyramids, the lofty cathedrals of the Christian world.
People think our work is monumental because it's art, but human beings do much bigger things: they build giant airports, highways for thousands of miles, much, much bigger than what we create.