|
|
|
- Question: To begin with, could you describe
this work?
-
- Answer: Yes, of course. What I've done is
change a glass of water into a full-grown oak tree without altering the accidents
of the glass of water.
-
- Q: The accidents?
- A: Yes. The colour, feel, weight,
size...
-
- Q: Do you mean that the glass of
water is a symbol of an oak tree?
- A: No. It's not a symbol. I've
changed the physical substance of the glass of water into that of an oak tree.
-
- Q: It looks like a glass of water...
- A: Of course it does. I didn't change
its appearance. But it's not a glass of water. It's an oak tree.
-
- Q: Can you prove what you claim to
have done?
- A: Well, yes and no. I claim to have
maintained the physical form of the glass of water and, as you can see, I have.
However, as one normally looks for evidence of physical change in terms of
altered form, no such proof exist.
-
- Q: Haven't you simply called this
glass of water an oak tree?
- A: Absolutely not. It is not a glass
of water anymore. I have changed its actual substance. It would no longer be
accurate to call it a glass of water. One could call it anything one wished but
that would not alter the fact that it is an oak tree.
-
- Q: Isn't this just a case of the
emperor's new clothes?
- A: No. With the emperor's new clothes
people claimed to see something which wasn't there because they felt they
should. I would be very surprised if anyone told me they saw an oak tree.
-
- Q: Was it difficult to effect the
change?
- A: No effort at all. But it took me
years of work before I realised I could do it.
-
- Q: When precisely did the glass of
water become an oak tree?
- A: When I put water in the glass.
-
- Q: Does this happen every time you
fill a glass with water?
- A: No, of course not. Only when I
intend to change it into an oak tree.
-
- Q: Then intention causes the change?
- A: I would say that it precipitates
the change.
-
- Q: You don't know how you do it?
- A: It contradicts what feel I know
about cause and effect.
-
- Q: It seems to me you're claiming to
have worked a miracle. Isn't that the case?
- A: I'm flattered that you think so.
-
- Q: But aren't you the only person who
can do something like this?
- A: How could I know?
-
- Q: Could you teach others to do it?
- A: No. It's not something one can
teach.
-
- Q: Do you consider that changing the
glass of water into an oak constitutes an artwork?
- A: Yes.
-
- Q: What precisely is the artwork? The
glass of water?
- A: There is no glass of water any
more.
-
- Q: The process change?
- A: There is no process involved in
the change.
-
- Q: The oak tree?
- A: Yes. The oak tree.
-
- Q: But the oak tree only exist in the
mind.
- A: No. The actual oak tree is
physically present but in the form of the glass of water. As the glass of water
was a particular glass of water, the oak tree is also particular. To conceive
the category "oak tree" or to picture a particular oak tree is not to understand
and experience what appears to be a glass of water as an oak tree. Just as it is imperceivable, it is also inconceivable.
-
- Q: Did the particular oak tree exist
somewhere else before it took the form of the glass water?
- A: No. This particular oak tree did
not exist previously. I should also point out that it does not and will ever
have any other form but that of a glass of water.
-
- Q: How long will it continue to be an
oak tree?
- A: Until I change it.
|
|