If you look at photographers who say, "I hate digital photography," they all use Photoshop, even if it's to make the sky just a little more blue than it was. Manipulation is very discrete and because it's so discrete nobody cares about it anymore. People accept manipulated photographs, I think.

If things are the way they are, why should I try to make them look different?

Normally if you add information to information, you have more information. In case of my art, I destroy information, I would say, because the image is disturbed by the writings. In a way, they become pure imagery. For me it's really fun because it's an idealistic approach to images, to just play around with information and see what's happening.

I received my training at an art academy, so what I produce is art. That's what is artistic about my photographs.

I believe that photography can only reproduce the surface of things. The same applies to a portrait. I take photographs of people the same way I would take photographs of a plaster bust.

I think it is an anarchistic idea to have information on the front and the back. Normally if you add information to information, you have more information.

In photography, you always have both the medium and the depicted subject at the same time.