Forgive my defensiveness, but I was a bit taken aback by your implication that I was elusive or even a bit duplicitous during our recent conversation. I do consider my work to be part of the tradition of street photography, so from my perspective it made perfect sense that it might be included in a compilation of contemporary street pictures. I have never made any pretense about my use of photoshop as a tool to help me achieve the unconventional look of my images. I spoke at length about this in the interview I did with the Humble Arts Foundation when they ran my a show of my work online last year. ( I won't reiterate the whole interview...if you are interested it can be found here.) As it is the 21st century, digital tools have become part of the means with which I make pictures. These tools have opened up worlds to me and have allowed me to make images that help me to satisfy my conceptual ideas. Over the last few years, it has been my goal to push the boundaries of what a street photograph is and to have it collide head on with the aesthetics and metaphorical content of the constructed and staged images which have been so prevalent during the last couple of decades - diCorcia, Wall, Crewdson, etc. Not unlike darkroom effects such as burning, dodging, contrast filters, bleaching, etc, etc, etc the computer allows me to make interpretive decisions when printing the images I have made in the real world. This is not just "art sauce" poured over my pictures to "tidy" them up but a deliberate attempt to push the boundaries of what we expect a photograph, a street photograph, to be. In my opinion, this is not a break from the tradition, but an extension of it. Though I have a broader agenda, in essence I am spontaneously making pictures from the observation of real life that subjectively comment on the social, emotional and political realities of the time in which I live - pictures which describe my experience of the world. If this isn't street photography, I don't know what is!

"All photographs are interpretive, if this were not the case making photographs would not be considered a creative act." This quote is from my friend and mentor, the great "street photographer" Philip Perkis. Even photojournalists' images are an interpretation of a scene though they, understandably, must adhere to a more strict set of ethics. All images are processed and manipulated to some degree, whether in the darkroom or computer. I don't think anyone would suggest that William Klein does not fit into the realm of street photography, and he does everything but throw the kitchen sink at his enlarger (maybe he even does that!) to achieve the unique look of his "observed" images. Any dogma that limits creativity and the possibility for developing new vision while working in the streets is, in my opinion, a good way to destroy the relevance and vitality of what is one of the most important and long standing traditions in photography.

Street photography has already been marginalized during the last 20 years or so. Yes, there are millions of us still out there doing it, but let's open up the possibilities of what street photography is so it can truly grow and develop. If we have a closed, unyielding conception of what street photography is, then by definition it has already been done before. Yes, wonderful new pictures will be made and as times change, perhaps even a few new-ish insights into the human condition will be made. But, if we all aspire to make something "new" and "fresh", and I think most of us do, instead of closing down the idea of what a street photograph is, let's embrace the possibility that, while there are certain foundational tenets of the genre, the borders of street photography are infinitely expandable. Otherwise, what's the point?

I truly appreciate your interest in my work and I wish you the best of luck with your Publication. I also look forward to continuing the conversation.

Best regards,