Why is it that, if the intention of art is to question the very foundations, most of the works related to photography, look more or less the same? Why is there an over-emphasis placed on the medium of film? Large-format images of deserted places, of objects devoid of emotion, are forced into context and story telling. Why does it have to be a personal story with no significance? Why is one photographer's story more important than another? Where is the novelty? These are the questions I am always trying to answer, within my mind. And it happens often. Because the frequency with which I come across these kind of works are very high.

Is it stemming from the arrogance of the artists, or narcissim? Is it due to the limited exposure (or lack thereof) of the artist's world? Exposure in this context does not refer to travelling the globe, but rather to being curious about values, cultures, and viewpoints that are different and sometimes opposing to one's own. Why is it that one has to go through a sombre mood to actually experience art? Do artists recognise their biases, privileges, bubbles, and beliefs that have gone into their art? You cannot possibly create something outside of the spectrum of what you haven't consumed. Art is in the mixing process: a cross-pollination, an output of what one has already experienced or encountered. 

Outside of photography-art medium, do artists really go out of their way to experience the work of fellow artists', similar to the way they expect the audience to experience their own art? That is, by slowing down, seeing through the layers, digging a little deeper into the context and relevance, interpreting the patterns and forces, and above all, forming an appreciation for them.