Criticism in the art world is much different than say, the theater world, where a big, mass effort lives or dies according to a theater critic. An artist is happy if they get their picture shown or their name in print. I mean, I’ve been called everything. I’ve been called “death warmed over” by John Canaday and everything else. I wrote him back a letter in The New York Times, saying I know more about death than he does. So he quit writing the art criticism, and started doing cooking! But when a young artist starts, and everyone says he or she is a genius, and they are put in all sorts of shows, and then they decline, things decline, and they are taken out of a show, or they are not put in, that can be rough on some people, to get your first hard criticism. If you withstand that, and just continue to work, you become resilient, and then you sort of get hardened to criticism, and it really doesn’t mean a thing. I mean, the criticisms I like is if they have got a handle on what I’m trying to do, whether I’m successful or not. If they have an inclination about this is the direction that I’m going in, instead of being totally confused, and they say, “It’s terrible! It’s horrible!” and they haven’t got a clue, and it’s all confused as to the momentum of what it is. That I don’t like. I mean, I like criticism though. It’s other people’s input, other people’s idea. And I think it would be very hard to be an art critic, or any kind of a critic, because it would be hard to be in people’s minds. I was on a panel discussion with Marshall McLuhan, back in 1966 or ’67. Phillip Morris put us there. And someone in the audience says, “Mr. McLuhan, I read all your books, and I happen to disagree with naw-naw-naw-naw… something.” And he says, “Oh, you’ve read all my books? Then you only know half the story.” So it’s hard to figure out. Someone asked him, “Mr. McLuhan, can you tell me the metaphor between this and that?” And he says, “Metaphor. Metaphor. A man’s grasp must exceed his reach, or what’s a metaphor?”