![Transcription Center logo](/themes/custom/tc_theme/assets/image/logo.png)
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
6 LL: [[strikethrough]] I'm not wild of it because [[/strikethrough]] It seems to me just another artificial distinction, like the term Art and the eternal [[strikethrough]] ladies' club [[/strikethrough]] questions, "But is it art?" and "What is art?" It's just another superficial imposition of someone else's idea of what something is or is not. I guess I'm kind of ambivalent about the term. [[strikethrough]] UM: Wolf Vostell said to me that Schwitters and Duchamp would not have been superb anti-artists if they hadn't been great artists, and they would not have been such great artists if they hadn't been such great anti-artists. [[/strikethrough]] LL: Reinhardt called his work anti-art, but of course he was only anti-art because he was so pro-art; he was anti-everybody else's art because it wasn't art enough; and in a sense he considered his art the only contemporary art, and the only anti-art. [[strikethrough]] UM: Anti-art is to be perceived in the larger sense—meaning the integration of the so-called negative. LL: [[strikethrough]]But it's still[[/strikethrough]] Generally its interpreted as being against art, and I can't think of a single artist working at the moment whose work is really interesting who can be interpreted as being against art. Though on second thought, I like guerilla art action groups here and in South America because I like the way they are