My popularity has to do with the divorce between modern art, where everything is obscure, and the viewer who often feels he needs a professor to tell them whether it's good or not. I believe a painting has to talk directly to the viewer, with composition, color and design, without a professor to explain it.

I have always wanted to make paintings that are impossible to walk past, paintings that grab and hold your attention. The more you look at them, the more satisfying they become for the viewer. The more time you give to the painting, the more you get back.

The still must tease with the promise of a story the viewer of it itches to be told.

I think you always have to find where the boundary is in relation to the context in order to be able to kind of articulate how you want the space to interact with the viewer.

What's really important is to simplify. The work of most photographers would be improved immensely if they could do one thing: get rid of the extraneous. If you strive for simplicity, you are more likely to reach the viewer.

As a pundit, it's important to tell the viewer something they might not know, be unbiased and not sit on the fence.

It's really easy to make a movie that five people understand. It's really hard to make something that a lot of people understand and yet is not obvious, still has subtlety and ambiguity, and leaves you with something to do as a viewer.

My goal is to make the viewer a little bit smarter.

Ultimately, you have to meet a realistic setting on screen with some imagination as a viewer, as that is what creates a story.

I've seen descriptions of advanced TV systems in which a simulation of reality is computer-controlled; the TV viewer of the future will wear a special helmet. You'll no longer be an external spectator to fiction created by others, but an active participant in your own fantasies/dramas.

As a viewer, I'm personally less interested in the damaged, white, middle-class male figuring out his dreams and more interested in maybe an underdog figuring out how they're going to survive in a world that doesn't necessarily invite them in.

When I get saturated by commercial films, I'll probably do another film like 'Siskiyaan.' But yes, as a viewer, I really enjoy commercial cinema; so obviously, as an actor, I would love to be a part of one.

Most people I run into say, I haven't missed an episode. Either you like Survivor or you don't, but if you do, you're a loyal viewer.

I don't want the viewer to be able to peel away the layers of my painting like the layers of an onion and find that all the blues are on the same level.

The power and appeal of Documentary is the way it alters and plays with the way the viewer relates to and understands the subject.

I'm interested in the space between the viewer and the surface of the painting - the forms and the way they work in their surroundings. I'm interested in how they react to a room.

I'm not going to let people get away with either a dishonest or inaccurate premise to what we're talking about because I think that does the viewer a disturbance.

When I told my dad about my decision to take up acting, he supported me in every possible way. He's very proud of me. Mom's happy because, as an avid TV viewer, she loves seeing me up there.

If you give an answer to your viewer, your film will simply finish in the movie theatre. But when you pose questions, your film actually begins after people watch it. In fact, your film will continue inside the viewer.

The space between the television set and the viewer is holy ground.