If most American cities are about the consumption of culture, Los Angeles and New York are about the production of culture - not only national culture but global culture.
Although my art work was heavily informed by my design work on a formal and visual level, as regards meaning and content the two practices parted ways.
Warhol's images made sense to me, although I knew nothing at the time of his background in commercial art. To be honest, I didn't think about him a hell of a lot.
I've never worked in advertising - my experience was as an editorial designer for magazines - but you could say, in the bigger picture, that magazines are vehicles for colour advertising.
The reason why bookstores are going out of business in the States is that people just can't focus on longer narratives now - even narrative film is in crisis in many ways, unless it's an adventure film.
I think that art is still a site for resistance and for the telling of various stories, for validating certain subjectivities we normally overlook. I'm trying to be affective, to suggest changes, and to resist what I feel are the tyrannies of social life on a certain level.
What makes the production of my work so expensive? The whole installation thing - the construction, the objects, the technology. It really adds up.
Direct address has been a consistent tactic in my work, regardless of the medium that I'm working in.
Power doesn't just exist. It is threaded through different mechanisms of control. I'm interested in those complexities. But I want to address that in very forthright language and sometimes with images.
Women's art, political art - those categorisations perpetuate a certain kind of marginality which I'm resistant to. But I absolutely define myself as a feminist.