18/05/2016 Newsnight


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.

Similar Content

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


Download Subtitles