A painter must think of everything he sees as being there entirely for his own use and pleasure.
Now that I know what I want, I don't have to hold on to it quite so much.
My work is purely autobiographical... It is about myself and my surroundings.
I would wish my portraits to be of the people, not like them. Not having a look of the sitter, being them.
I want paint to work as flesh.
I remember Francis Bacon would say that he felt he was giving art what he thought it previously lacked. With me, it's what Yeats called the fascination with what's difficult. I'm only trying to do what I can't do.
I paint people not because of what they are like, not exactly in spite of what they are like, but how they happen to be.
Full, saturated colours have an emotional significance I want to avoid.
And, since the model he faithfully copies is not going to be hung up next to the picture, since the picture is going to be there on its own, it is of no interest whether it is an accurate copy of the model.
Painting is sometimes like those recipes where you do all manner of elaborate things to a duck, and then end up putting it on one side and only using the skin.
As far as I am concerned the paint is the person. I want it to work for me just as flesh does.
I am only interested in painting the actual person, in doing a painting of them, not in using them to some ulterior end of art. For me, to use someone doing something not native to them would be wrong.
The character of the artist doesn't enter into the nature of the art.
The model should only serve the very private function for the painter of providing the starting point for his excitement.
The painter must give a completely free rein to any feeling or sensations he may have and reject nothing to which he is naturally drawn.