I’ve struggled with my dual interests in landscape photography and conceptual photography. It feels like they are disparate, almost as if one negates the other, but something deeper down tells me that isn’t so. When I think about the audience, it seems they are on other sides of the planet. But when it comes to making art, for the artist, it’s not about the audience, is it? As the artist, in the moment of creation, it is a wholly present experience with the here and now. I’m absorbed by the details of the light illuminating the Silver Feather grass like a million halos, or by the way the harsh afternoon sun throws the inky shadow of a welded gate onto the surface of a peeling facade. For me, in the moment of looking and the moment of capture, it is not about the subject matter as much as it is about the quality of light and composition. It is in the preconceived distinction of forms between landscape photography and conceptual photography that I believe causes the illusion of the two forms being distinct. It’s also in the history of photography, people rolling their eyes at the thought of photography being anything like the other visual art forms, until Stieglitz came along with Equivalents. Perhaps this is what makes photography so uniquely its own world, it simultaneously is document and original, it really just comes down to the way your preconceptions are wired. That’s what I’ve always loved about photography since I was 12 years old, that it had the power to challenge how I looked at things, places and people. The end results may appear different, but at the moment of creation, it’s simply about my being captured by what grabs my attention and brings me into the present moment.