E.A. I have a strong belief in the future possibilities for art, but I feel that the only way for such a future to become positive is by reassessing things very carefully and in a very thorough way. And I think the only way to do that as an artist, for myself, is also to re asses it in a very personal way, in a internal way and, of course, through the evidence, which is the work. For an artist there is no other choice. But I think it's also probably true that my position is fairly unique in the West. There is a some small group of people who appreciate this, but a lot of the time the way people read my work is, for me, very superficial, or they see only one side of the work that fits into their a priori concepts. So for instance, this term post-modern, and often I find myself labeled as post-modern artist. I find this very difficult. But I can understand the use of the word and how some people might use it while also acknowledging its problems as a term. And how other people may use the term simply as a means of compartmentalize the work. 1 feel that to some extent this term "post-modern" has clouded the complexity of my work, or my ambition for the work in general.

S.N. Many of the texts written in foreign countries, seem to explain your work by using terms like "post-modern" or "simulacrum". In a way they are not wrong, but as you said, most of the time lot of art critisism uses the term "postmodern" without its real range of meaning, and (the term) "simulacrum" without its depth of meaning. The term "simulacrum" is a deep and complicated concept; it has almost become a philosophy in our culture today. I think the insight of the artist surpasses the words of critisism. Especially the critique on your work.

E.A. I understood that, from reading through your text, that the way that you were using those words was very complicated. And what I'm saying now is that often these words are used, as you know, in a very simplistic sense, and in a way, that I'd call, slack or loose and which I find very irritating. Because with issues like that, it is so easy to use them in a very slack way. And that is how those words have unfortunately become devalued and sometimes almost meaningless.

S.N. Well, since I'm not an art critique, I don't really have to concern myself with this as business. But yes, I agree with you. The present condition of art critisism is not really acceptable. The insight of art and insight of critisism should be on the same level, otherwise the words of critisism becomes word of business. I think they should have the same attitude as Baudelaire, when he practiced art critisism. Well, let me go back to the previous subject. So, prior to Nietzsche, there weren't many people who doubted the "origin" of European culture. The question of "origin" didn't even appear as an important subject. But Nietzsche, who is a symbolical figure for every philosopher of modern times, started to question this problem of "origin" thoroughly.

E.A. He is a very important figure, but he's not referred to a lot in the West really, or at least in my opinion, in the way he deserves. I think it's difficult as those central notions of origin which he questioned existed before the foundation of the church, which then became the central form of learning throughout Western society. The Christian scholars did a very good job of burying or disguising the origin of Western culture. And a lot of elements that were essential parts of Western Culture, became negative. They were depicted as negative aspect or depicted as sins. But Nietzsche is so important because he pronounced the death of God, that was obviously a very iconoclastic act, but very significant because by saying that God was dead that freed him (Nietzsche) to discuss these things to re-evaluate them, this is the key to his importance.

S.N. I feel that Nietzsche's attitude of approaching Greek culture is very paradoxical. And I think it is similar to your attitude of approaching the Greek.

E.A. I feel great sympathy with Nietzsche. I am trying to make work which contains paradox. Almost trying to make work that contradicts itself. Because the beauty of paradox is that it is a means of making two very different concepts fit together and make sense. So that you can see one thing but hopefully understand two sides of it at the same time, like the two sides of a coin.