Sometimes, in fact, I feel the obligation is to look very closely at those specific photographs and really speak very precisely to them without in fact contextualizing them much more widely. But I think it's a process that I'm engaged in, yet I can't really specify further, in the same way that it's hard for me to judge my own writing. You mention that you read the foreign press, and it seems to me that over the years you have made an effort to include worldwide issues and events in your work. A number of your columns have been written from Europe, about European events. Another thing I've noticed is the increasing attention the photography world has been paying to third world and Japanese photography.
Good work seems to be coming from all over the world.
That is, there is an international traffic in photographic images, and there is hardly a culture in the world, at least a culture that's dealing with current technology, that does not have a photographic aspect, and does not have a history of photography within that culture. I certainly know that there's a history of photography in Scandinavia. In any case, there are many different histories of photography in particular countries, so that we're past the point where it's possible to have a single volume history of photography that's credible anymore. The medium is too big, it's too widespread. It's in too many cultures in too many ways for one volume to effectively address it all.