It's a question of subject (the things photographed) and subject matter (what the photograph is about). In the 'objective' manner of Atget and of Gossage's topographic landscapes the photographed subject is also very much the subject matter of the photograph, pointing itself to itself. This is also to more or lesser degrees at play in my own way of working and something that I've been consciously aware of at times when making photographs. At other times my approach to the photographic image is more 'subjective' and symbolist. So I wouldn't say my work is the absolute opposite of the objective style, it's more a combination and a conscious straddling between these two sides of the spectrum. I'm also not sure that the formally objective approach keeps the viewer in the picture at all times. The paradox being that the precise and detached gaze of the camera is also what can turn even the most ordinary scene into a mise-en-scène. This is also the reason why the surrealists saw so much potential in Atget's images in terms of their elusive meaning even when the subject is so clearly described by the camera. The pictures in The Pond when looked at individually all have a luscious matter-of-fact'ness about them in how they point to their subjects while simultaneously also pointing to and commenting on the medium they're made in and with. But the real subject of The Pond must be found in the entirety of the book as one work of art and artistic statement that has been intentionally left open to multiple interpretations.