And I disagree about the point scoring, but then I’ve always had a problem with editors. But it is interesting to find out how personal a lot of the early paintings actually were – whereas my impression at the time was of an artist trying to do something like bad taste or obscene Saturday Evening Post illustrations. Being ‘Bad’ was very much a thing in New York around then and I supposed him rather more programmatic. But that was obviously wide of the mark. He really couldn’t draw figures or model in paint very well, although he does improve with practice.

I wonder does he say anything about John Currin, who strikes me as more relevant than Hirst or Koons to his own work?

The fact that he has little time for his juniors shouldn’t come as a surprise. Few artists can accept new developments; can really see the ways younger artists make things new again. The same is true of critics of course. Ultimately we are all prisoners of our times.