It’s an odd thing. The way we’ve been hammered in all the possible metaphorical ways to think that the original is better. Even when there’s no real original, there must be a limit. I’m not sure why but I think it has something to do with money and, no, I can’t really come up with another reason. Perhaps to create a manufactured urgency and envy. But those are more side-effects from the money issue.

I’m an aesthetic. Poster, print, painting, reproductions. The image and what it gives me is the important thing. To me, if someone asks me where I got it and I can answer and perhaps even give away a copy, that’s a good thing. I want art to be appreciated, to drift in and out through people’s lives. It’s hard in some cases, architecture for instance don’ really lend itself to copies in an easy way except by way of LEGO. (LEGO needs to be recognised as an art-form.) But I can’t see any reason why kids shouldn’t be allowed to climb on old statues if you got those in the garden. 

Expensive photographs with editions of five copies, I don’t see the point. Not really. there’s a bit too much reverence for art as a static object, the beauty of tear and wear is seen with disdain. Perhaps I’m just too digital in my way of thinking but I can’t be alone in this. Art needs to be liberated.