I was interested in finding ways to include aspects of construction and artifice in my work. So when I made something like the destroyed room in 78, that was a sort of a statement of what directions could be new at least for me in photography, and then involved the studio in venting things, conjuring them up. So I was interested in that problem very elaborately for a long time. I'm literally at the same time going around the city with my camera, trying to make pictures of the city. So it was not something that came afterwards. It was a counterpart to this interest in the way the opposite, which was this constructive pictorial view of what photography could be. At the same time I was doing that, I was trying to make cityscapes. So at almost exactly the same moment when I was in my studio doing picture of a woman or destroyed room or something, I was making cityscapes. So they were almost like two parallel directions at the same time. So what it meant to me was that objective photography, documentary photography, was it equally interesting to subjective photography or pictorial photography or studio photography? I wanted to do them both and I wanted to do everything in between whatever that was. City was an immediate subject and straight photography was an immediate interest. People think that what I did was just invent something to do with construction and what I call cinematography. But this was part of it. First of all, we can't ever escape the general objective documentary type of photography. And I never tried to escape it. I think that there's this process of documentary photography where people carry the camera and they search and hunt and find things and once in a thousand they get a really good picture. I'm just not that kind of person. Whereas I was still interested in these occurrences, whatever they might be. I wasn't interested in capturing them that way because it seemed to restrict my ability to shape things. So I see things I don't photograph them and I think but nevertheless I can make them happen again. That's why I call what I do cinematography because cinema people make things happen and they can look very real and we take them as real while we're watching a film. So I can do that too and so I might find an event, the occurrence that I'd like to do something with but the moment where I saw the occurrence, the occurrence didn't take place in the right place for me. So then I need to find a place. It's a process of letting them find those two, bringing those things together. But those places I discovered most of them just by drifting around the city which is part of my work, drifting. And I don't really search in the sense of I don't quite know what I'm looking for. I'm just looking. And if I see something I'll make a note of it and then I will return to it when I can. So these landscapes, landscapes I thought of as moments during those searches where in fact I didn't find a secluded spot. I found the overall. When I you know when I started working intensely here I realized that Vancouver was just as good as anywhere. Even though I'm sure there are places where there are more spectacular and interesting. Dini's Gapes. But nevertheless it was it was perfectly adequate. So for example in Park Drive and realized that over time parts of the forest, the forest cover had vanished through storms, trees falling down, selective gardening, whatever. And I noticed that along this stretch of Park Drive, on the one side, there's only a thin row of trees behind it. There is no there are no real trees that the forest has been a lot of it's been removed. And I thought that was sort of fascinating that it was sort of like a hedge or a facade here to be a vestige of the original forest. Picture making has its frame of reference. Picture making has its standards, its history, you know, and it's some it's criteria. And I think those are I think that those are held in common by photographers, the painters or drawers. There's a lot of transition between or a lot of discussion between those art forms and they're always and there always has been since the beginning of photography. So when I read my pictures I have that in mind. I have what I have my idea of what makes a good picture in mine but I don't have in mind any particular picture just what makes them. And so with photography it becomes complex because in painting for example if there's something that doesn't suit the composition or the aesthetic idea you can simply ignore it. This kind of work that's not really possible. So it's quite easy for something to disturb the pictorial aim. Some detail some problems some some circumstance or the real environment. I know how to include those things and I think photography does include those things but it's a different process. So I can't really use in any direct way any lessons learned from painting. I can't use them directly in what I do with a camera because it's not the same art form. But there's just an infinite number of ways of using that and I use it my way and other people use it some other way.