MD:  Absolutely involved — I know the difficulties of my works. I did it in dialogue with the curator, Connie Butler, and we worked with the architecture of the museum and the characteristics of the pieces. The works start to talk to each other when they get together in the rooms, and some don't like each other and seem to do each other no good, while others form new and better relationships when they (sometimes accidentally) meet. In Amsterdam, my friend and studio manager Jolie van Leeuwen and I had already tried out some combinations, working with a two-dimensional floor plan, but in three dimensions, things always change again. I always ask the members of the hanging team for suggestions too, when I'm in doubt. I'm not a linear thinker or maker — I embrace chance.

MD:  I don't "search" for meaning. Meaning comes with the consciousness of the viewing process; it's an interrelational process, not a static identity. I understand the notion of existentialism that refuses an essentialism of meaning. We all are responsible for what we say we see.

MD:  It depends on what's meant by "political." If you define it as only relating to South Africa's apartheid politics, then I find it a hypocritical and stupid interpretation — what about American, European, and other racist and imperialist politics? If "political" includes the fact that all aesthetic judgments are culturally biased and context-sensitive, then you're getting closer.

MD:  In the year 2008, when the rape and abuse of women is worse than ever, and with all the official and unofficial wars that surround us, we should all be feminists as human beings. But as a painter, I don't work with any "-isms" as a primary subject matter.

MD:  It depends on the specific individual or image thereof I'm dealing with. If the man is my lover, I'll treat him differently than if I make a more detached painting of a certain type of male, e.g., a gay macho pinup, whom I may be fascinated by, but not attracted to. Just as the cliché Playboy woman types aren't exciting to me anymore — I often find the androgynes much more erotic. I could go on, but the short answer is that for a painter, every good painting should be different from another, whatever the sex of the subject.

MD:  They choose me.

MD:  Both sexes have supported me — not always for the same reasons, but that's the nature of my work. Different people recognize and appreciate different aspects of it.

MD:  All of those considerations are important to me and, for me, define all the best portraits of our time. In my case, my form being painting, in the end, after all is said and done, the painterly and formal aspects are crucial. The way painting moves between illusionism and flatness determines the tone and dynamics of the visual impact.

MD:  My writing is more reflection afterwards, but there's some foreplay too.

MD:  I don't think in those terms really, but when I realized that Vermeer had at last left the stage of kitsch reproduction/admiration for me and had become so alive to me, and when Mondrian finally transcended the art book and began to move me, I had to admit Dutch art was so much more than I ever thought it was when I first came to study in Europe.

MD:  Contemporary Holland is not a place for art stars and glamour, and so its artistic self-esteem isn't that high. Americans don't even know the art of the last few generations here. But there are some very good artists in Holland, and the country only needs some strong Dutch critics and writers to defend its worth and show its specific depths more in relation to international art. Museum directors should write more essays on the artists that live here. If I was a better writer and had more time...