1)    Have you ever considered the possibility of your work as being a copy?

That choosing those such familiar pictures to the world for the base of my works is itself an “original”. My works are, certainly, copies, but they are copied from what is dancing in my head, displayed by colors. To me, this form of copying is the most primitive and classical one. I have been adopting “copy” as my definition with this very meaning of it. There’s no otherwise.Whether it is pop art (which is much inspired by available finds, but it is inconsiderate to call it copying), abstractionism, expressionism or whatsoever you call it, to me, there’s only one form of copying: turning it invisible (in my mind) into visible (on the canvas).
I only concern about true art. And this is what I call true art. It’s not copying.
Can you make the similarities and differences out between Andy Warhol and PsychoLinh, my friend?

2)    What makes your art original?

We receive information and dispose it (every single person, definitely, has her/his own way) then announcing it out by the means of colors, lines, arrangement and rhythm. This whole process is exactly the element that makes our art original. The style we perform is nothing else but a form.
When Kurt Cobain raises his voice singing “The man who sold the world”, ”Lake of fire”, I call his action “original”, quite original no matter those songs belong to David Bowie and Meat Puppets.
Available image is just an inspiration. It is not and will never be a statement of my idea.

3) How do you think your work crosses the boundary from an appropriated/copied piece to an original and unique piece?

As I stated previously, it’s the whole process of translating the idea into colored materials by my very own way.  I never consider my works as copies, I ignore the thought that my works are not “original and unique”. Then my works get no boundary to cross.

4) Is it the concept of your work what makes it original?  if so, would you consider your work to be some sort of conceptual art?

My concept is but a part of making my work original.  The way how I deal with this concept, how I declare it out, how I make the others feel something by their own ways is the key element. That’s it.
Conceptual art is just a name you call. Art is art itself.

5) Do you believe in the characteristics of postmodernism, such as: ''nothing is original, it has all been done before'' ?

I believe in one thing original, it is the operation of this vast universe. Everything else plays as an original code, an original digit of this original ROOT.
I have an  aim in life: creating the FINE things without pursuit of fame or money.  It gets a bunch of approaches to reach the final destination, and so I have a bunch of ways to express my work as well. But no matter how I work or what style I make, it will lead me to this very aim.
When standing in front of a picture, I never see THE IMAGE itself as something original for its style, its material (even it belongs to Andy Warhol or to someone famous), but I will receive something far beyond the canvas. That how its creator got inspired, making the inspiration out into the canvas and declaring his idea is original (CODE or DIGIT).
The postmodernism’s “nothing is original, it has all been done before” had been done before by the Buddha. And the Buddha’s, for sure, had been done before by the universe’s operation. Have you ever heard about the BUDDHA POINTING HIS FINGER TO THE MOON?