The central issue for me in my work is to locate an identity, in a personal way, with a subject. Then I try to frame it so that it can be seen or brought to life in the studio or on a location. When I’m looking at my subject, I’m seeing the surface. I’m interested in how that information gets translated into an image. I want it to be readable, and what happens during the process of making, and bringing it to life. It’s all factual information that is seen, but the issues about identity aren’t always right there in front of you. I am not always describing reality, but the guiding force of my work is how it occurs, and how it appears. I want the viewer to be aware of the perspective of a subject, and that the subject is illuminated from within. It’s something alchemical between subject and myself, definitely. I reside entirely within the perspective of cause and effect, and the different formulas produced in doing so.   
Even though my work is painterly in style, I don’t confuse painting and photography as the same medium. The photographer shouldn’t tell you what to see. You just see it. The same way the camera saw it. My work is produced inside of the medium of photography, and it shows all, nothing is added and nothing is taken out. I look for metamorphosis to create a single pictorial instant, where a convulsive and subversive beauty develops into a reaction.   
I don’t intend my work to be meditations on hyper organic hedonistic imagery. It’s always with me. The influence is my own process of making it, because all the moments are fused. I am never bored with the aspects of what the enigmatic approach to photography can really mean. That’s the painterly side to it. With photography you create illusion to reality. It’s built into it. In a way, the evolution is about a particular conclusion, and how I can completely control how it’s made. It also asks for interpretation of the viewer. So I welcome all interpretation.