I believe that I've got a unique knowledge and understanding of this game, and I'm able to see it differently than a lot of people.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical.
Anything produced and then exhibited for public view is open to interpretation.
You know, the way art history is taught, often there's nothing that tells you why the painting is great. The description of a lousy painting and the description of a great painting will very much sound the same.
It's entertaining to watch somebody break my music down or explain what he thinks I was thinking during the process of making these records. Because... he has no idea.
I would be with a bunch of Kennedy fans watching the debate, and their comment would be, 'He's really slaughtering Nixon.' Then we would all go to another apartment, and the Nixon fans would say, 'How do you like the shellacking he gave Kennedy?'
Interviewers actively fool themselves, finding ways to learn from interviews even if there's actually nothing there to learn from.
Art critics are like every other critic.
Each reader needs to bring his or her own mind and heart to the text.
There are many ways to see football and interpret it.
It is the heart that makes the critic, not the nose.
I always prefer other people's interpretations over my own, so I'm not very quick to make explicit what exactly a song or record is about.
If it is true that there is always more than one way of construing a text, it is not true that all interpretations are equal.
The paintings usually start as abstracts and then I look at them and look at them, and like a Rorschach test, I try and see what it is.
I do not document anything, I give an interpretation.
Football's all about opinions, all of them different, whether from a top analyst or a man in a bunnet, and some folk are just never going to like you.
No dream symbol can be separated from the individual who dreams it, and there is no definite or straightforward interpretation of any dream.
All good criticism should be judged the way art is. You shouldn't read it the way you read history or science.
A poem doesn't do everything for you. You are supposed to go on with your thinking. You are supposed to enrich the other person's poem with your extensions, your uniquely personal understandings, thus making the poem serve you.
Juries are not computers. They are composed of human beings who evaluate evidence differently.
Those who attempts to explain a picture are on the wrong track most of the time.
I don't really read reviews and comments that much. There just isn't a lot to be gained from it.
Literary criticism can be no more than a reasoned account of the feeling produced upon the critic by the book he is criticising.
The only advice ... that one person can give another about reading is to take no advice, to follow your own instincts, to use your own reason, to come to your own conclusions.
Anyone of conscience could come look at my book and see it as an esoteric oddity or be intrigued by it. It could happen either way on a thousand different little decisions each individual might make.
