I don’t think creativity is this mythical beast. This is something that make me despise the drivel that was Elizabeth Gilbert’s TED-talk. It’s all down to hard work and being open to possibilities. (It’s also about finding a medium for oneself but this isn’t about that because that one can be very hard. And yes, I think that being in front of a camera can be as much creative medium as behind it even in still photography.)

Even though I can feel overly creative and it coming out of my ears, it doesn’t change the fact that I’m boxed in. I  am not a person who do leaps of imagination into areas that blows people’s minds. It’s not something I lament, it’s a fact that I’m far more of an illustrator or concept artist than a “true” artist (what ever that means) no matter what field I work in. 

Take this for example. If I may say so, I’m pretty good at photography but I’m the person who finds someone suddenly picking up a fistful of pistachios a wonderful subject. The spontaneity is my field there. I don’t do complex portraits where I think long and hard on small details, and while I could probably come up with great staging if I put my mind to it it’s not something my heart’s into. No matter how much I love the photographic poetry of Francesca Woodman or Eugéne Atget it’s not something I can do. It’s not in my box just as a few other things — like stock photography which is just impossible, it’s funny that the soul crushing genre is also one of the hardest.

Same thing with all other fields. It’s not a sad thing, not at all. It’s just who I am. Being true to oneself and follow the heart is the important thing when making things because I think it’s leaves obvious marks on the result. Now that I’ve written this, I think I see that the mundane is my field as well as the half fiction/documentaries of Werner Herzog. There’s a poetry there as well, but not as explicit and because of that a bit more rare and rugged.