Naturalness
The work you see is essentially randomly collected, albeit within a framework of principles that I have built up: I go to places wherever I happen to be, where I can be alone as far as possible to find things that are of interest. The things that are of interest are no more than sparks of inspiration within otherwise unremarkable conditions. Sometimes I struggle to find these sparks and feel myself repeating old themes (for example, being drawn to the colour orange) but I otherwise try to trust my instincts. I’m part documentarian and part wanderer, and I never interfere with the situations I find, nor really with the images I capture. On the occasions that I am chasing a particular subject matter this process often takes quite a long time because I gather the images in the same random and natural way. Very often the first view I have of a scene turns out to be the most satisfying image on later reflection, no matter how many times I retake the picture. I think this is to do with the lack of a preconceived idea of a subject that can very quickly spoil something if dwelt upon.
Image organization
I have probably spent almost as much time trying to think of ways in which to organize, categorize and define my photographic work as I have actually taking the photographs themselves. I will often go through a process of re-assessing the collection of images I like the best in the context of some new idea I have about how they might work together. Then a few days or weeks later I change my mind and restructure things along a different way of thinking, of making new connections between things. That is to say, I am never happy with it, and maybe because I always had great trouble defining myself within my own life I often have great trouble defining this output of images that are a result of the way I choose to see and do things. These days I find arranging the images according to where they were photographed is a good start.
Object / Landscape quandary
For years I worried and bit my nails over whether my photographs should be objects or landscapes. Maybe they were both and maybe neither. If a photograph has a central focal point then it might be an object; if a landscape has an object in it, which of them takes precedence? If an object is in a landscape should it be called an obscape? Let’s just say that I have almost learned to accept the fact that it doesn’t matter because only I care about that.
About influences
One of the things that life has taught me is that influences are not really important. In architecture studies we were constantly directed to look at a list of accepted external influences, many of them photographers, to inspire us towards creating new and exciting forms in building: Robert Mapplethorpe, Cindy Sherman, Bernd and Hiller Becher, Jeff Wall, Weegee, Eadweard Muybridge (whose name still gives me tongue cramp). It’s safe to say that really none of these people have directly influenced my photography work much at all, with the possible exception of the Bechers whose methodical approach to documentation I have toyed with. That’s not to say that I don’t love a lot of their work, along with the music of Captain Beefheart and John Cale, the writing of Iris Murdoch and Stanislaw Lem, the films of Eric Rohmer and the paintings of Cézanne. They are all there if you want to find them but you have to go in with a shovel.