After more than 10 years of total rejection of photography, I came back to my craft in 2006. It was a period where I needed to get rid of the research of "beauty" and thus move towards research of the "meaning" in photography.

 

I developed my personal style in the realm of the “Conceptual Photography 2.0”, where a concept is represented by a symbolic language. My images are not altered "post-production", all is made in the shooting phase with a lot of logistics and people supporting me. “Conceptual Photography 2.0” conveys a mood, a feeling, a concept by employing a (more or less) cryptic symbolism left to the free interpretation of the viewer.

 

In orthodox “conceptual photography”, the author represents the “concept” in the image and the viewer is left to decipher the image, trying to understand “what” the author is representing. “Conceptual Photography 2.0” takes a different approach and poses the viewer at the same level of the artist: the cryptic symbolism left to the free interpretation of the viewer and each viewer will find his own, original, unique meaning. One artist and 100 viewers will generate 101 artworks, possibly with some overlaps each other, but substantially unique.

 

I have been somewhat influenced by Flemish painters of the XV and XVI century (especially Bosh) and a bit of Magritte and surrealism in general. I also think that authors like Storm Thorgerson, Cheyco Leidmann and Leslie Krims played a role. In my early works, the major source of inspiration come from the music of Pink Floyd.

 

I was pushed to become an artist from the categorical imperative of communicating to other people. Talk to them, stimulate them in reading and decrypting the meaning of the concepts conveyed in the images. I'm unable to express myself with paintings, drawings, poetry or music. Luckily, I'm pretty clever with photography, that's why I use this particular medium to talk.