引语

你曾说过你在1960年代时对约翰凯奇(John Cage)的 Lecture on Nothing印象深刻，Cage文中写到，'我无话可说，但我还在说 (I have nothing to say and I am saying it)'。你如何理解这个悖论？这和你避免在自己的作品中做任何严正声明的欲望之间又有什么关联?
我想这和他使用偶发和意外的概念有相同的动机，亦即我们根本无法明白或说太多，以传统的哲学语汇来说就是 '我只知道我一无所知'。 

你在谈论自己根据照片做画、你所面对的各种选择和这些选择的消逝时，你脑里想到的是不是将Cage作为范例这个选择本身的随机性?
Cage有纪律得多，他让意外和偶发成为一种方法，并且用非常建设性的方式来使用这个方法。我从来都做不到，我这里的一切都比较混乱。

是指比较随机，或是比较直观本能的混乱?
应该是比较直观本能的。我相信Cage基本上知道他自己在做什么。在这一点上我可能完全错误，但我的直觉是如此。

And what is it that connects Vermeer, Palladio, Bach, Cage?
It's that same quality I've been talking about. It's neither contrived, nor surprising and smart, not baffling, not witty, not interesting, not cynical, it can't be planned and it probably can't even be described. It's just good.

Would it be fair to say that for you Fluxus triggered a kind of rebirth of painting?
Yes, extrinsically, but in terms of pictures it was Pop art with ist new picture motifs. But Fluxus introduced a further dimension, a sense of impropriety and lunacy. That was fascinating. Those actions in Aachen and Düsseldorf, by Cage, Paik, Beuys, and many others – I never experienced that again.