"How would you explain Manet’s ? Yes, you may say that the mirror in the back of the barmaid, like Plato’s, shows that the reflections in the mirror are as close as the viewers get to viewing reality, which is mixed up with the inner reality of the barmaid, her reflection in the mirror, and her own picture in front of the viewer and image of Manet himself as the painter and as the creator of that painting in that mirror. Yet we know that this picture cannot be real since the artist cannot simultaneously be painting the picture and be steering at the barmaid in the guise of a client in the picture. Since, if the picture shows the true reality the mirror must reflect the painter performing the act of painting! Explanations like these are, of course, stating the obvious. The truth pf this painting is all revealed at that very moment in which it connects with the subconscious of the viewers. Manet does not want to warn his viewers that “look! I am showing you the illusion of picturing reality in painting”. If he really wanted to give such a warning he would have written such a warning underneath his work, pretty much the same way that wrote . But, even Magritte’s warning is not that clear! What is not a pipe, that illustration of a pipe? If so, then that is obvious, and what is the point of stating the obvious? Perhaps Magritte like Ferdinand de Saussure wants to say there is a difference between the pipe as a ‘signifier’ and the pipe as a ‘signified’. As I stated the grammar of painting is different from the grammar of language."

“I believe any philosophizing about art is absurd and empty. Unfortunately, in the last century a phenomenon has emerged in which the status of “work of art” were granted to many foolish, tacky, and distasteful works as long as they were accompanied by ten or twelve pages of philosophizing justification.”

“Seurat and Signac mixed paintings with the dry and abstract laws of science. This approach, in my opinion, usually strays from the purpose of art in general. Because it means that one cannot expect from an artifact, that is created with mathematical laws, to establish an improbable and irrational relationship between the work and the viewer.”

“I love to experiment with all styles, and do not have any particular prejudice or bias towards any specific style. These works appear, and they turn out, the way they should. I do not decide in what style I want to paint. I am only experimenting. Even Picasso, when he arrived at Cubism, had already experimented with a lot of other styles.”

“I am biased towards the belief that every painter must be grounded in strong and faultless drawing skills, and until one has not experimented with all styles of painting and has not comprehended their potentialities one's work is not complete. Even an abstract painter must know how to draw as well as a figurative artist. As for me, drawing has never created any problem, since I know how to draw anatomy correctly if I had to, I understand the function of muscle groups and sculpture.”

“As with respect to viewers, I must say that gallery-viewing is increasingly becoming more of a fashion than a love. Many of the openings have turned into exhibitions of pompousness. Also, there are groups of viewers that enter galleries with their already formed judgments. Amidst all these there are also groups that show absolutely no reaction towards the works, these are the worst. They are neither approving nor disapproving. A smaller percentage constitutes honest art-lovers who ask questions, and their views are worthwhile and they inspire real energy in an artist.”

“It must be said that an authentic work of art needs no philosophical justification. In principle, if Philosophical Treatises could explain a work of art then there would be no justification for the existence of that work art. Put it differently, a work of art precisely enters into the scene when philosophy and other experimental sciences are inept of representing or elucidating an artistic vision.”