I will try to account for the degree of my aesthetic emotion. That, I conceive, is the function of the critic.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
What is important, then, is not that the critic should possess a correct abstract definition of beauty for the intellect, but a certain kind of temperament, the power of being deeply moved by the presence of beautiful objects.
One thing that I don't think my critics realize about me is that I've been trained to look adversity in the face.
Praise or blame has but a momentary effect on the man whose love of beauty in the abstract makes him a severe critic on his own works.
My style is determined by the mood, the period and the circumstances which I'm going through in a given moment.
The bottom line is: You are in control of your reactions to things and how you view things.
Above all, I try to create an emotion to which others can respond.
My whole career I've been interested by the distinction between an emotional and an intellectual response to an artwork.
In this world, emotion has become suspect - the accepted style is smooth, antiseptic and passionless.
There's something in music that fascinates me - how it communicates emotion so immediately. That's something I wanted in my paintings.
I've had so much positive reaction and emotional fulfillment from the creation of my art and sharing it with everyday people that I never paid too much attention to the opinion of critics.