As not a native, I have the advantage of not seeing scenes habitually. I can see things fresh.

I know that people think of my work from the '70s as American, but I've been going to other places for a long time.

I think most serious photographers understand that there's this large gap between the world and how the world looks through a photograph.

There's something essentially fictive about a photograph. That doesn't mean that if you understand that, and you understand how the world is transformed by the camera, that you can't use the limitations or the transformation to have an observation that is a very subtle perception of the world.

The danger is that you can wind up doing tourist pictures. I want to see it fresh and see the little bits of everyday life that a native might take for granted, but that are special to the place, while at the same time, not taking a picture that would be a tourist cliché.

A work can do many things at once, and it doesn't have to be just about the world, it could also be about photography, it could be about perception, it could be an exploration of the medium. It could be a document, it could be a visual poetry, and it could be a formal exploration all at the same time.

Back in the 70s it cost 15-20$ a shot for the film, the processing, and the contact sheet, now it’s twice that.