This interview is remarkably short on interview material, the reasons for which become obvious by the end of it. I hesitate to reference any specific details, including tags, for the same reasons. I want to address how its subject interfaces with the science as art debate (or at least artistic visualization of scientific output); I want to suggest something about the frustrated megalomania of hack artists with a power grudge; I want to mention something along of the lines of "this is what happens when stupid people have enough money to act out...".

But basically, this is too bizarre for critical commentary. I'm even  a bit surprised that Seed carried it - but I guess it's more important to expose this sort of nonsense, the kind that  conveys "meaning" on a grand scale while thumbing its nose at reality.