How has your work changed living in New York?

Well, it's been evolving but I guess it would have evolved had I stayed in Mexico. However, being in New York has made me more conscious of certain things that don't exist here. At first I tried to find equivalents in New York to life in Mexico City but I soon realized that there are very few such equivalents and I began to wonder why. One of the things that was most striking was the difference between being poor in Mexico and being poor in New York. Here, being poor is a shameful thing, perhaps that comes from the Protestant ethic. But in Mexico people consider that it's simply a question of bad luck. In the end God will even things out. In Mexico the poor have a great sense of pride and this is reflected very much in their aesthetic sense. In Mexico poor people must fight to not let themselves become overwhelmed and swallowed up. This comes out in the fact that anything becomes an excuse for beauty. There's a great decorative sense in Mexico. I've become much aware of that being away and it's affected my work. Another great difference is color. For example, the sorts of industrial colors available in Mexico can't be bought here. My own paintings have become brighter since I've been in New York. My earlier work was more austere.

I know that when you go to Mexico you take a lot of photographs. Do you consider these photographs as works of art in themselves?

Well, not really. I don't have a great technique. Some turn out very well but others don't. I don't consider myself a photographer. I really use my photographs as a dictionary. I have many notebooks with photos in them and when I want to paint a door or a pot I look through my notebooks at all the details I've gathered in my photos.

Could you talk about your methods of composition and technique?

The first thing is that my ideas for a painting-for its composition-come to me in an instant. Sometimes I actually compose the objects in my studio if I can- although I often can't. I don't do preparatory drawings for my paintings. I think that this would actually be counterproductive. It would kill the spontaneity. The first thing I do on the canvas is sketch the composition-quickly put the elements in the place that they eventually will be. When painting the picture I try to reproduce the process that the object itself underwent in its own creation. For example, if I'm going to paint things in a bag I paint the objects first and then paint the bag around them. Or I paint a window frame and then after that the windows themselves. Insofar as is possible, I try to recreate the real life process. This is essential for me. I often try to find out exactly how things were made so that I can paint them truthfully. I'm very sensitive to the way things look and interact with each other-reflections, distortions, etc. I am very concerned about placement-how the back of a surface interacts with the front and the visual effects they produce.

Your paintings have various sizes. Can you explain any differences in concept between one size and another?

The size of a painting makes a big difference in its mood or atmosphere. A small painting is very focused; it has its own world within it whereas a big painting is more explosive. It's done to have a greater impact from afar-so there are big differences that relate to the size. Sometimes I work on a small and a large painting at the same time to maintain a certain equilibrium. Each size painting is very exhausting to do-but each in a different way. A large picture is filled with emotion. I'm in a more agitated state when I paint them. In a certain sense the large works are more conceptual. You're always concerned about how it will look from a distance and you have to paint more indistinctly so that it will make sense from far away. Brush strokes are much freer and the images have to be more synthesized. A small painting is more like the work of an artisan. What will be seen is exactly what you're painting. You are at the same distance as the viewer will be.