What are the ways in which a photographer (or you as photographer) and a viewer (perhaps you as a viewer) can transcend or transform the subject/s of a photograph? Can a photographer or a viewer transcend or transform the subject/s of a photograph? Must a photographer or a viewer transcend or transform the subject/s of a photograph? Is there necessarily or desirably a subject of a photograph? To what extent is the photograph itself the subject? What, if any, can be some of the differences between a table and a photograph of a table, a landscape and a photograph of a landscape, a person and a photograph of a person? Why and when, if ever, might the picture of something be more intimate than a direct relationship with that thing? Why do you photograph something in addition to or instead of sending others to see it "in person" themselves? I experience, in making and viewing photographs, the significance of mediation and artificiality in tension with the simultaneous immediacy of very real relationships. My presentation of a subject as photographer and my response and reaction to a subject as viewer is wrapped up in the picture I present or see, what the camera and photographic process help create for me. Yet, as photographer, my relationship to my subjects and, as viewer, my relationship to the photograph is an immediate and often an intimate one. Via a sometimes artificialized photographic look at something, I can experience very genuine emotional and intellectual responses and reactions. There can be a play between distance and intimacy. I like that interaction.