The Queen's speech. New polling on Brexit. US Senate allows 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia. A junior doctors deal? Artists Jeff Koons and Damien Hurst on their new exhibition.
Browse content similar to 18/05/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
And a government dealing with dissent within opts
My government will use the opportunity of a strengthening
economy to deliver security for working people to increase life
chances for the most disadvantaged and to strengthen national defences.
We'll ask this Cabinet member if her government
The US senate has passed a highly controversial bill that lets
the families of 9/11 victims sue Saudi Arabia.
One family member will tell us why they'd like to.
Jeff Koons is a world-renowned artist and so is Damien Hirst. On
Newsnight, an exclusive television interview about what happens when
Damien Hirst puts on a show of Jeff Koons' work in London.
It's not easy to write 1,000 words when you haven't got much
to say - as some newspaper columnists demonstrate each week.
And maybe that was the problem of the Government in
drafting the 936-word Queen's Speech we heard today.
It wasn't so much that the Government has nothing to say -
it's just that with a slender majority and the party
in the midst of a vicious brawl, getting a majority on anything
So out came a miscellany of items in the not-so-difficult file.
Measures to promote driverless cars, hints that we'll
build a space port - which Twitter noted, we'll get
And some measures aimed at enhancing social mobility.
But of course, everything is seen through referendum glasses right
now, so one highlight was the non-appearance of any Bill
From Buckingham Palace, attended by an escort of Household Cavalry, the
Queen with Prince Philip begins her drive through the capital. The
annual ritual has barely changed in the 63 years the Queen has arrived
at the Palace of Westminster in her coach. The Queen has thankfully
never been burdened with having to write her speech, guaranteeing the
message changes as Prime Minister 's come and go. This year marked the
moment when her 12th Prime Minister, David Cameron, laid the ground for
what he hopes will be the legacy of the second and final phase of his
premiership. He wants to be seen as one of the great social reformers,
such as William Wilberforce, who ended slavery in much of the British
Empire. My government will legislate to reform prisonstoday's Queen's
Speech included measures to enhance the life chances of children in a
social work Bill, and measures to improve decrepit prisons. But the
Prime Minister knows he needs to win the EU referendum to have any hope
of fulfilling his ambitions. Even if he wins, he may have his ambitions
clouded by two factors, the shadow of Europe and his slim majority. The
Prime Minister showed he is walking on eggshells when two bills related
to Europe were shelved and delayed respectively. Brexit Cabinet
Minister 's were on their best behaviour, not least because Justice
Secretary Michael Gove will be at the heart of delivering reforms. But
one leading supporter of the Leave campaign suggests there could be
trouble ahead for one little campaign suggests there could be
aspect of the Prime Minister's deal, relinquishing the -- the veto in
relation to eurozone rules. We have already agreed in advance to
implement it, even though it could be harmful. That's what it is to be
a sitting duck, or it will be if we choose to remain in the European
Union. Today, Liam Fox insists he will accept the result of the
referendum, but I understand that some Eurosceptics are planning to
referendum, but I understand that use the forthcoming Tory leadership
contest to join battle on Europe again. When the leadership hustings
are eventually held, the candidates will be asked one simple question -
will you agree to restore British veto? There is probably only one
answer you can give to that question, attention the leading to
the unravelling of the Prime Minister's EU deal, and in the heart
of Eurosceptics, laying the grounds Minister's EU deal, and in the heart
for a possible second referendum. But one of Boris Johnson's allies
believes the Brexiters will be punished if they refuse to accept
defeat in the referendum. If we were to ignore the specific mandate from
the British people I think they would be furious. So the message I
would send out to everybody across the political spectrum is to respect
the decision the British people make, both in the general election
and in the referendum this year, to rally behind the Prime Minister. If
the referendum goes his way, the Prime Minister will still have to
tread carefully, in might of his slim majority. The majority is very
small. There will be more rebellions, obviously. Then there is
the problem of Tory election expenses and by-elections looming. I
do think it is a very comfortable position for him, even if we vote to
stay in, which I hope we will. There are signs that the government is
keen to avoid future Parliamentary bust ups. I understand Theresa May
is listening carefully to Labour and Tory critics of the contentious
investor greet Powers Bill, or snooper's charter. There will be
some move to secure cooperation on the timing of the bill. Downing
Street is finessing the next stage of David Cameron's premiership, but
he will only make progress if the dark clouds of Europe are cleared.
We'll talk to Liz Truss shortly, Secretary of State for Environment,
But before we do, it's been a busy old day in politics,
because not only did we have a Queen's Speech,
there was also a settlement in the junior doctors dispute.
Everyone says you shouldn't talk about winners and losers,
but if you do want to, it does look like the
Won the battle, but maybe losing the NHS.
What exactly is the settlement, and what have the government got out of
this? The last time there were talks, they ended when the BMA, the
doctors union, declined to talk about reducing overtime for doctors
who work on Saturday. The government wanted that because they want to
move to what they called the seven-day NHS. The BMA wouldn't even
talk about it and the government withdrew from talks. Then there were
strikes. The deal agreed today doesn't give overtime for normal
work on a Saturday or Sunday, which has been a bit of a shock to a lot
of junior doctors, who didn't know it was on the table. You do get a
bit of extra pay if you work enough Saturdays and Sundays, but it is not
the volumes you get at the moment. The total effect, from the
Department of Health's perspective, is that they think there is roughly
a 30% cuts to the cost of staffing in a facility with junior doctors
compared to the current situation. A really big saving. A lot of people
think the seven-day NHS is about to happen, but there's quite a lot
going on in the NHS. That isn't a foregone conclusion because the BMA
members have to vote. The bigger point is that the NHS is in
difficulty. Around 87% are seen within four hours. The target is
95%. There's all sorts of measures where things are not going badly
wrong. 2 million people turned up at a accident and emergency. The NHS is
going at the same speed but it hasn't kept up with a wave of
demand. You see that with performance measures and on the
financial side as well. Thank you. The Environment Secretary
Liz Truss is here. Can we start on the NHS. What do you
make of it? I am pleased there has been a resolution on this dispute.
Jeremy Hunt has set forward a very important reform agenda, a seven-day
NHS, which we need to see in order to see the improvements in care we
want to see as a nation. We are investing more money in the NHS,
which is important. Can we not argue that this is just one enormous
distraction. The service is drowning at the moment, according to Chris.
30% of page -- 13% of patients are waiting to be seen more than four
hours at A Huge deficits last year. Finance chiefs at hospitals
are expecting the same to happen this year. Has this not just been a
terrible waste of everybody's time and effort while the NHS is in a
real problem? We are seeing rising demand for NHS services. We are
seeing the increasing cost of things like drugs. Jeremy Hughes doing a
fantastic job. Having a big, distracting strike on another issue?
Getting to where we want to in terms of a seven-day NHS, which has huge
public support and is a manifesto commitment. But achieving that
agreement with doctors. Doctors worked very hard and are the
backbone of the NHS. I think the public will be very pleased that we
have got to a resolution on this issue, and we are moving forward on
this seven-day NHS. On the Queen's Speech, a lot of people have said it
is somewhat watered down. There's not a lot in there. I think it is
nonsense. I was surprised that one of the big decisions we were going
to get, airport capacity in the south-east, didn't get a mention. We
are looking at airport capacity and a decision will be made on that.
That has been heavily trailed already. There are two important
bills. There are over 20 bills in the Queen's Speech, covering all
kinds of areas, such as improving our productivity and social mobility
as a country. Prison Reform Trust and been done since Victorian times.
This is the biggest reform of Britain we've seen for a generation.
University reform, new universities established, looking at the quality
of teaching... This is a substantial Queen's Speech with very important
bills which are addressing the key issues we face as a country, which
is we have the second lowest productivity in the G7, and we have
very low rates of social mobility. What about the British bill of
rights? In the Queen's Speech last year, the Queen said, my government
will bring forward proposals for the British bill of rights. If that
happened? The government has been working hard on this. She didn't
bring it forward, which is why she said the same this year. Are we
going to hear it every year, or will it happen? It is a very complicated
legal issue. There are lots of ins and outs to discuss. You started
talking about it when you were and outs to discuss. You started
opposition. We are damned if we do, downed if we don't. If we put
something forward before it is ready, we get criticised. We are
working on something that is very important, bringing more
working on something that is very sense to human rights decisions.
Will it come this year? We are working on proposals and it's
important to get it right. And working on proposals and it's
another one that David working on proposals and it's
tantalise the party with. He said we would set out proposals to make
cleared the British Parliament's sovereignty. What happened to that
Bill? We are in the middle of a referendum campaign. We are voting
for that on June the 23rd. During that campaign, the British people
have to make a decision about whether they want to be in or out of
the EU. I am a big supporter of Remain. I think we will be better
off, safer and more secure, but the British people have to make that
decision. The sovereignty bill can only follow when we have decided
whether we are in or out of the EU. It would be premature to do that
before then. He said back in February it would be in the coming
days. The general point here is that everything is about trying to hold
the party together, which means tantalising each side of the party
with things they want. David Cameron has to offer these things every now
and then to some of his party to keep them loyal. Isn't that the
correct way to drive this government? What is driving the
government is the core issues facing this country, such as improving our
productivity, so we can earn more, improving our social mobility, so
that people are not left on the scrapheap. For me, that is why I
went into politics, because I care about making sure we have a society
of opportunity. That is what motivates us as conservatives.
Last one, is the referendum going to settle the issue of British
membership of the EU? We last had bought 40 years ago, the year I was
born. We are having vote now. What I want it to do is to settle that
question. I strongly hope that we secure a significant result. For the
Remain a side of the debate. I think that is important and I think it
would be good for the country. And if you get a leader who is a sceptic
and even some on the sceptical side, the Brexit side, say they will
accept the result and are hoping for a Brexit leader. Does that work? Do
you think a Brexit leader of these Conservative Party can make the best
of our relationship with the EU? Well, first of all, we have to have
the vote and it is a decision for the British public. This is not
about the Conservative Party or who is the next leader, this is a
serious question for our country. What I worry about is that the
public out there needs to think about the economic impact, the
impact on their family and jobs and the opportunities for their
children, to do things like travel overseas. This should not be about
the Conservative Party. That is not what this decision is about. Liz
Truss, and do very much. -- thank you very much.
Now ironically, while we discuss all this, the referendum polls have
You never have any idea of how much weight to put
on these things now, but a phone poll in
the Evening Standard tonight put Remain on 55%, Leave on 37%.
Do they think something has happened or are they dismissing this?
Officially there is no display since complacency in Number Ten and the
prime minister's director of Communications is going to take a
sabbatical and work for the campaign but in private, senior Tories are
saying that they think the referendum is moving the way of In.
Also, there was a poll in the daily Telegraph yesterday commissioned by
Lynton Crosby who ran the election campaign for the Tories last year
and he wrote a piece saying that time was running out for the Brexit
campaign. But when we talk about polls, we need to have a health
warning because they go down and they go up and they can be wrong.
But in private, the Tories are saying that they are saying that
they hope that they can finally defeat the Conservative Eurosceptic
right that they say it has bedevilled the party with the vision
for the last quarter of a party. But Suzanne Evans will say that the
remains side is a complacent and out of touch campaign, and that they
should talk to Heartland MPs, who have an ease about the referendum.
The broad thrust of the campaign, what is happening? There is a letter
out tomorrow. What a surprise (!). Who would've thought? Michael
Bloomberg saying don't leave, it will risk the economy. Thank you
very much. Now we're joined in the studio
by Suzanne Evans from Vote Leave. Do you sense that the polls have
moved against you? Is that imagination or not? There is only
one poll that counts and that is the one when the ballot papers are
counted. We know that polls can be misleading, as we found out to our
cost in the general election. They say a week is a long time in
politics, 38 days is a chance to do a very positive, optimistic
campaign. And I am still very confident that we can win. We have
the arguments in our favour. They are pulling out the big guns. I had
to laugh at you laughing about another letter. I think the public
are getting bored of this tit for tat, these big business leaders
coming out to support remaining in the European Union. But what are
your tactics for the rest of the campaign? There is obviously been a
debate about how far you should push the migration issue and it is quite
clear that it is an area of huge public concern and clear that you
have more options outside the EU than inside the EU on what to do
with migration. Absolutely. The Queen's Speech, they were talking
about the security of the British people, securing our borders and
making sure that wages rise and the welfare bill reduces. Well, you
cannot do that within the European Union because we have no control of
our borders. But are you going to make more of the immigration
argument? Because there has been a debate about how migration should
feature. Vote Leave is very much making the migration argument. But I
think also that we recognise that most people who are concerned about
migration, that is one of the motivating factors to vote to leave.
I do not think it is something that we need to do overkill on. As the
campaign banked on process things too much? There was a big argument
about the debate and Cameron was up against whoever, and a lot of people
thought that did not work for you, apart from looking a bit impetuous
it was just the wrong subject to be talking about. I think the TV
debates will possibly be a game changer and that is why I am saying
we're certainly not given up yet. The government should be complacent.
I think that if you look around what is happening, the U-turns we have
had on academies and junior doctors today, on child refugees, they seem
to be bending over backwards to make sure they do not do anything to
upset the Remain campaign. And the TV campaigns could be -- the TV
debates could be a game changer and I am looking forward to
debates could be a game changer and has been another debate on your site
about whether there is too much of one two individuals,
about whether there is too much of Boris Johnson. Do you think that
there has been too much Boris Johnson. Do you think that
one or two and needs to be broader front than Boris? We don't put
people forward in isolation. We know that Boris is one of the most
trusted people in the EU -- on the EU, and that is why he has been
front and centre. But there is room for other people and we have been
using others. But the media have not picked up on that because Boris is
the big celebrity, if you like, but I heard Andrea Leslie and speak
yesterday about how the EU threatens our energy security. We know that
our energy bills have tripled because of these tariffs and levies
imposed by the EU. because of these tariffs and levies
Cleverly was in, talking because of these tariffs and levies
EU tariffs outside the European Union keep poorer African farmers
poor. Either Union keep poorer African farmers
cares about the developing world trade,
cares about the developing world Farage said that the referendum may
not end the matter. Farage said that the referendum may
it was close, it would be unfinished business by a long
it was close, it would be unfinished view? I think in the short term, the
referendum is going to decide the matter. I have always felt that
referendum is going to decide the we vote to remain, then the European
Union, based on past behaviour will take that on a mandate to push
forward with whatever it wants. And any future
forward with whatever it wants. And Cameron or whoever it might
forward with whatever it wants. And there is a point where we want to
say no to the EU, they will turn around and say, I'm sorry Mr Prime
Minister, or Mrs prime minister, your people voted
Minister, or Mrs prime minister, do not have a mandate. But it cannot
come back in five years, can it? What is it, ten, 20, 30 years? If on
June the 4th, the What is it, ten, 20, 30 years? If on
moves forward with a proposal for will be upset and realise they have
been hoodwinked. If Turkey is fast-track entry, I think it is
going to come around one that you might hear
a lot more about. It voted unanimously
for something called the Justice Against Sponsors
of Terrorism Act. Normal practice is
that countries can't be sued in the courts
of other countries. Countries have sovereign immunity,
which for example, stops you suing the US government over here,
for contributing to climate change. The Senate Bill removes sovereign
immunity in cases where nations have been involved in
terrorism on US soil. The immediate significance
is to allow the families of victims of 9/11 to sue the Saudi
government in the US for any role Saudi officials might
have played in the attacks. But the Bill opens up a can of worms
in international law. President Obama doesn't like it,
as it invites other countries It also threatens
US-Saudi relations. It's not clear how
the bill will fare. However, the 9/11 families have
already chalked up one victory - President Obama has said
he will release 28 redacted pages of the official commission
into the World Trade Centre attacks that will open up questions
about Saudi involvement. Joining me now from Washington DC
is Terry Strada, the wife of 9/11 victim Tom Strada and now chair
of 9/11 Families Survivors United Good evening to you. Thank you for
joining us. Why do you want the right to sue the Saudi government?
Because we want to hold them accountable. We want to hold the
people that were behind, financing and aiding and abetting terrorists
here, accountable in a court of law. We want justice for the murder of
our loved ones. And in your suspicion, how high up do you think
Saudi complicity might have gone? Well, we have evidence that the
Saudis were definitely involved. Also within these 28 ages that you
spoke of, it points the finger at Saudi Arabia. How far it goes
exactly, I'm not sure, but that is a good reason to bring it into a court
of law and let the investigation continue. They did not get to fully
investigate the Saudi involvement. We need to know how far up the
scores. And one of the people, John Leeman, has seen the pages and has
broken ranks and talked about this and he said that he saw no evidence
that the Saudi government as an institution was involved in the
attacks. So I am wondering whether the Saudi government is the right
target or whether it is the individuals, employees of the Saudi
government, who should be the appropriate target of legal action.
OK, so who was directing those employees of the Saudi Arabian
government to carry out the attacks? I think we need to further the
investigation. I think we need to look into it further than we have
and I think we need to let the evidence that we have collected
against the Saudis into a courtroom so that we can finally see, and let
everyone see what we know, which is that the Saudis were involved in
9/11. The Saudis will not recognise American courts' writes to tell them
to pay fines or civil penalties or whatever. So what do you think will
happen? If you go to a US court and win a victory against the Saudi
government, what is the outcome? What are you looking for? We are
looking for accountability and we are looking to hold them accountable
for the role that they played in murdering 3000 people on American
soil. It was the worst terrorist attack in America and it was a
horrific attack. We want to hold them accountable because if we do,
then they will not continue funding terrorism and we will not continue
to seek the rise of Isis and what it is doing across the world. It is
time to make the Saudis on up to the role they play in funding terrorist
activities and aiding and abetting the hijackers while they were here
in this country. If we do not hold them accountable, they will not
stop. The biggest thing I am concerned about is our future and
how do we prevent our future from terrorism. First of all, we have to
hold people accountable for 9/11 and we need to know the full truth
before we can never really protect ourselves going forward. What do you
think of the legal argument? Clearly President Obama is not keen on this
idea. The legal I demons around sovereign immunity, I don't know if
you can hear me but sovereign immunity, that it sets a precedent
that other nations will then want to sue the US? Have we lost to? I lost
it just for a second. I am interested in the legal argument,
whether there is weight in the President's legal argument that
other nations will then start suing America? Iraqis could start suing
Americans in Iraqi courts. Le Bataclan? Absently not. -- will that
happen? Absolutely not. Within our sovereign immunity laws, there is an
exception that you can hold people accountable for acts of terrorism.
That has been misinterpreted by the court. We are trying to fix that
issue with the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, to hold
people that aid and abet terrorism on American soil that happens to
injure or hurt Americans. It does not change what other countries can
and cannot do. They are entitled to have whatever laws they want,
whether we have this bill or not. Think is much. People will be
watching this great interest. Thank you very much.
Sit back now, and prepare for a feast.
And I'm not talking about lingiuni with spicy tomato sauce and mussels.
No, a major new art exhibition has just opened its doors in London.
It brings together two greats of the art world,
And Kirsty Wark got to join them for a sneak preview.
They were once the enfants terribles of art world,
whose work had the power to cause shock and outrage as well
Now, Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst are giants of modern art.
Their work sells for millions, and they've come together at Damien
Hirst's new gallery in Newport Street in London's Vauxhall,
for a free exhibition of Jeff Koons' art.
It's the first show of Jeff Koons work in this country
since 2009, and it comes from Damien Hirst's own collection.
They curated the exhibition together, but this is the moment
In the first gallery are some of his early
ready-made works, inspired by his hero, Marcel Duchamp.
Hirst has been a huge fan of Koons' work since his student days.
And now he's able to buy just about anything he wants.
That was the piece I bought from Larry, the first piece.
In 2013, Koons broke the record for the most expensive work
monkey, fetched more than $58 million.
It feels like you couldn't really do the show without it.
And as if you've built this room for it!
The surface is cast in stainless steel.
Yeah, I've got no idea how you achieved that, because there's
always a little ripple in the reflection,
because the reflection is always so pure.
One room is not for the faint-hearted.
When did you get these pieces, Damien?
While the huge bowl of eggs symbolises creation
and birth, the other images are still controversial.
starring Ilona Staller, better known by
# Ah, love to love you, baby... #
I fell in love with her for who she was, exactly the person,
but it ended up it did not work out, so it was really about acceptance.
# Ah, love to love you, baby... #
When I first saw it I was like, he's lost it.
I just thought, why would you want to go that far?
And then afterwards, a couple of years later, I was like,
For a while, they were my favourite pieces.
Damien, how old will you. Can you remember when you first saw Jeff's
work? I was a student, so the early 80s, maybe 85. I saw it in the
visage Gallery in the New York Cammack now show, in 86 or 87.
Tutors didn't like it,. And with the New York now show, they just said,
that isn't art. I liked it because it was totally against what my
tutors believed, and so simple and easy. Did you think you would end up
being one of Jeff Koons' major collectors of art? Never. I looked
at the work at the time, and I felt I could never possess anything like
that. To be in a position where you can... I have Jeff 's Mac work in my
house, a little piece by the TV, so I end up not looking at the TV and
looking at the peace instead! When we use first aware of Damien's work?
We were at an exhibition together in Germany. This would have been around
1991. When you did the puppy. The giant puppy made out of flowers. We
spent time together. Our families hung out. Damien McBride father, and
my mum was there. I know Damien's mother. It was wonderful that we
spent time together in this small German city, and that's where we
befriended each other. When you started collecting Jeff's work, you
were developing as an artist as Jeff was also developing as an artist. Is
that one of the reasons why you wanted to collect? I'd been selling
work and I had some money coming in, so I felt I could justify buying
things that I'd always loved. One of the first pieces I bought was the
hoover downstairs. I said to Larry, who has a gallery in New York, how
much is that? I said, will it go up in value? He said, if you are buying
it for that reason, don't buy it! Damien, you have the space, and you
decided you would show Jeff's work. Why was it important to put Jeff's
work together? I always thought I wanted to do an exhibition of Jeff's
work. He's a difficult artist to collect because you want one of
everything. It's quite a commitment. I always thought I would love to
have enough to do a really great show. There's a few pieces I haven't
got, one of the ones I always wanted was one of the wooden pieces, and a
ceramic peaks -- surround it peace. I don't feel like anything is
missing. It feels absolutely complete, from entering with the
first inflatable flowers, to ending here with an elephant. Do you see
your life flashing before you? I see a creative life. Working with
objects, working with metaphor. What I really find important in this
exhibition is the friendship with Damien. That is what is really
important to me, that Damien would collect my work. This interaction is
what I really walk away with. With Jeff's work, I think the word is
celebration. I'm a bit more prone to darkness here and there, but I think
art in itself, even if you are making something negative, it is a
positive thought. It's difficult for someone to come in here and not
absolutely love it. When you see kids in a Koons exhibition, they are
just running round, loving it. Right now, we are sitting in front of
Play-Doh were one of your biggest and heaviest works that Damien has.
Why did you buy this piece of work? When I saw it, it seems to be the
basis of all art. It seemed to say everything. I have a young son, and
he made a mound of Play-Doh. I was looking elsewhere, and he said, dad.
I turned, and he had the mound right here. And he said, there you go.
That was the beginning of it. You spoke earlier about the fact that
your work seems more onto mystic than Damien's. Damien, you said your
work seems darker. But this is the ultimate dark object. It is all
about semantics. I had Elephant on my desk, and I remember looking at
it and thinking that it had the same quality as the diamond skull has, it
looks shiny and bright, but it looks like you can pop it with a pin.
That's... It's made of material, but it is lasting 6000 years and can't
tame. The casting is a 6000 -year-old process. What do you see
in each other? What I love about your work, or Jeff, is that he is a
contemporary, he is alive today. You can admire him from afar, but it is
inspirational to see that somebody living today is making art that is
on a par with all those dead guys. When whenever I think about my own
work, I know my own problems and weaknesses and doubts. You go
through them all to end up with good work. When I look at your work, I
can't see any of it. I have to remind myself that you are getting
these beautifully finished objects. Tell him that you are doubtful
sometimes! What I enjoy about Damien's work is its power. It is
really visually... There is a strength there, which is always very
confrontational in its power. The type of images, objects, things that
are brought together, are extremely well thought out, construct it.
There's a natural quality about it. Even though they are different
things, they unify themselves so well. It's just an amazing intellect
and thought. This idea of a discussion about power and control,
and giving up control. I think that is extremely strong in
and giving up control. I think that work. When I look at the butterflies
that are painted into the surface, it is a profound discourse. You both
have attracted a lot of attention because of the vast amount of money
have attracted a lot of attention think, in a way, that sometimes
obscures your art? I think that money can secure
obscures your art? I think that in England. People think
obscures your art? I think that artists need to be poor, or you
cannot have a focus of money. When I made some money, it changed
everything for me. I notice that businessmen started taking me
seriously. The audience is changed. Money is a huge part of my life. I
always thought it was is important as love or death. It's something you
need to understand and respect. It shouldn't be
need to understand and respect. It word. Once you have made the art and
someone has bought it, word. Once you have made the art and
it as a commodity rather than something they love? I was brought
up to be self-reliant. I would sell drinks on golf courses, and maybe
the ninth hole is a way make money, or I
wrapping paper and chocolates. I enjoyed the
wrapping paper and chocolates. I to be part of a dialogue with people
like war hole or Salvador Dali, or Picasso or Leonardo. To be in a
dialogue with the group. Here to be involved with Damien. It's an
international discourse, and there international discourse, and there
are hundreds of thousands of other people we are connected to, and we
are having a dialogue people we are connected to, and we
talking about art and how it's changed. It's changed my life and
made my life more vast than it would have been if I didn't get involved
in this dialogue. People are supportive to that ongoing dialogue,
hopefully it's just a symbol that you are contributing in some way.
Thank you both very much indeed for this interview. Thank you.
That exhibition is at the Newport Street Gallery in London,
and you can watch a longer version of that interview