I think I spent the fewest number of days in Israel of all the people and that's again very circumstantial. However, let me correct myself. If I hadn't found the subject the first trip, I don't think I would have come back. I think it would have been no, I didn't work. But it was just really fortuitous that it happened that way because I don't feel obligated to come to the truth about Israel through photography or truth about Vancouver through photography or Prague or anywhere else. I only want to come to the truth of the picture I'm making and that can be anywhere. Fredrick first contacted me, I think in 2009 or even it could have been 10. I think it was 9. On the recommendation of a couple of mutual friends, I don't do commissions or I don't do work on request, I'm not good at it. And I just go with the person who is talking to me at the time. And so he didn't have to convince me, he just asked me inviting me to come to Israel and see what I could do. He also made it clear that there was no obligation, there was no agenda, which is something that people sometimes say and don't really mean. But in his case I believed it. And that we weren't obliged to prove anything to anyone and we were being invited simply because of what he felt we might be able to do. I shoot film, I don't shoot digital, so I had to shoot film and develop it in the middle of the desert. And we found a way to create a film developing lab at our hotel. So we've developed a film every day and we really settled into an excellent tiny little production facility. So in some ways I was really a foreigner and alien. I didn't really get to know Israel very well. But I believe that the picture itself has capacity to know things we don't know. We don't have to have knowledge. Sometimes we just have to have eyes, see something and take advantage of it. And the picture will tell us things that I don't know and I don't think I need to know. I want viewers to have an experience. I work as experiential. It doesn't have ideas in it necessarily or if it does they're carried by the experience. And I think my pictures as art are aesthetic that is they are about their own beauty and their artistic nests. And I think the experience of that is a experience of enjoyment. It's complicated form of enjoyment. You enjoy what you're seeing. It's exciting you in some complex way. And that's going to be caused by the way the subject looks, the way it's been rendered. And I think our compassion for the subject or empathy of the subject isn't ignited by the subject directly because it's very difficult to be that involved in things that are far away and complicated that you don't really understand people you don't know and you're not related to. And there's so many subjects. But if you're carried away somehow by the enjoyment of the thing you're seeing that changes your relation to that subject, whatever might be, or even even invents your relation to that subject which may never have existed before. And then of course that means that once your relation to that subject has changed then some relation inside your, something to do with your relation to the world has changed even in some indefinable way. So take as a model you know you're the subject of something you never cared about or even never even noticed. Now you've noticed it, enjoyed it. Now you somehow you care about it the way you didn't in the past. Now you go away from the picture as a slightly even microscopically different person and that we hope always hope for. That's one of the old ideas about art is that it makes you in some indefinable way another person than you were before you experienced the art. If the art has goodness in it, artistic goodness, then there's a kind of goodness that you've experienced and becomes part of you somehow and people hope that's the truth.