The weirdest thing to me is that magazines would never do this for their writers. They would never hire a writer who writes for another magazine; they want to have their own stable of writers. Newsweek would never hire a TIME writer, and TIME would never hire a Newsweek writer - but they would both hire the same photographer to shoot a cover for them.

There's no reason you'd shoot Mother Theresa and Newt Gingrich the same way.

I'm an artist in residence, I've still been able to accept commercial jobs, and what I'll do is I'll make little videos on the side that I then bring back to the school and show the students the next day.

Magazines don't have enough confidence to have their own style, so they use a borrowed style. That is shocking to me, but your perception is very accurate. It's a way to be more commercially viable, but to me, that's not having a style, that's having a schtick.

My brother used to say some people have an "inferiority simplex." It's not that they're under the delusion that they're inferior; they actually are inferior and they secretly know it.

A lot of the challenge and the reason for the success of those one-shot photographers is that their pictures almost have to be subject proof. Because you usually only have a few minutes with the person. You never know who's going to walk into the room - whether they're going to be friendly, grumpy, sick of photographers, or between meetings.

I hate to say it because I think people are risk averse these days more than ever. Before they even pick up the phone, they know what the picture's going to be. So there's a certain comfort in that, a certain security that they can lay out the cover of the magazine and kind of know what it's going to be.