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

To see something spectacular and recognise it as a photographic possibility is not making a very big leap. But to see something ordinary, something you’d see every day, and recognize it as a photographic possibility - that is what I am interested in.

Why can't a photograph be all four things at once? -be an art object; be a document, what ever that means exactly, but deal with content; be a formalist exploration; and operate on some, metaphor is not the right word but, resonant level.

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

This idea of imposing an order is very interesting to me. Photography is in essence an analytic medium. … In photography, you start with the whole world and every decision you make imposes an order on it. The question is to what extent it’s an idealized order I’m imposing or is it an order that grows out of what the world looks like.

The context in which a photograph is seen affects the meaning the viewer draws from it.

I don't know how much a photograph can add to a biography, the way a film or writing or narrative medium could. Because it's a frozen image.