It's really, really hard to make it as a fine-art photographer exclusively.
What I'm good at is making art.
It's no small irony that the government inevitably and invariably ends up promoting precisely that which they would most like to repress.
In fact, I don't believe I'm guilty of any crimes, but I've always been drawn to and fascinated by physical, sexual and psychological change, and there's an erotic aspect to that.
I know the families that I photograph extremely well, and I've known them for a very long time.
I just yesterday returned from a trip where I photographed a woman with two children whom I photographed first when she was the age of the older of the two children.
We live in an age where anonymity is growing in magnitude like a bomb going off.
That dichotomy between the public consumption of the work and my intent and practice in making it is an uneasy one for me, on occasion.
I found myself serving a sentence of public denial from the very second the raid on my apartment happened.
Physical beauty is such a strange thing.
Any artist that's involved in their work is inevitably going to have a focus in what they do.
When I started doing my work years ago, I had doubts as to whether the informed-consent question was answerable.
Different members of different cultures will think that some things are beautiful.
The images I like best are parts of series that I've started, in some cases, with the pregnancies of the mothers of the children in question, and I continue that series right on through the birth of children to the child that resulted from that first pregnancy.
I will always admit immediately to what's obvious, which is that Homo sapiens is inherently erotic or inherently sensual from birth.