I realized about 10 years ago that my wealth has to go back to society. A fortune, the size of which is hard to imagine, is best not passed on to one's children. It's not constructive for them.
Art isn't supposed to change the world, but it can.
Art is not supposed to change the world, to change practical things, but to change perceptions. Art can change the way we see the world. Art can create an analogy.
An artist should be taking risks. That's the whole idea of being an artist.
The city's the best gallery I could imagine. I would never have to make a book and then present it to a gallery and let them decide if my work was nice enough to show it to people. I would control it directly with the public in the streets.
Can art change the world? Maybe. . . we should change the question: Can art change people's lives?
The real art is in the street, is making the artwork, and for that you have to involve people. The action is actually the artwork.
Most people in England don't live in the North, and people are snobby in England, so they wanted a band from the South.
In anything we do, any endeavor, it's not what you do; it's why you do it
If you mess up the performance on stage, you do it again the next night. You're like alright, you let yourself off the hook, and you've got to go back in there. Whereas, with a film, I would go home and be like, "Well, I've ruined the arc of the character forever. That scene is never going to work. I know because I can never shoot it again. " So, it's all miserable, but in different ways.
Standardized personalization=universal right to meaningful learning. Personalized standardization=flexible access to mandated learning.