I also wonder from time to time why I shoot in several different genres that don't even stand next to each other?
I almost always meet photographers, especially outstanding ones, who have succeeded in one particular genre.
One has been shooting street all his life, the other has always been a landscape painter, and the third has succeeded in night shooting and besides that he does not shoot anything else.
It's strange, very strange that I shoot everything in a row.
Even the reporters don't shoot like I do.
And the most important thing is that each genre has different feelings and states manifest themselves.
No, that's not the most important thing. The most important and paradoxical thing is that when I'm on the wave of one genre, I'm not interested in others.
When I rent dilapidated housing or courtyards, the street seems uninteresting to me.
But it was like that before. Now that I have already realized that everything is cyclical, I just perceive it as another creative wave and that everything will return to normal.
And for me, the yards will become worthless again, they will seem something frivolous, but the street and everyday life with people will be the main task of life.
It seems to me that soon I will begin to perceive all genres as a single whole and important.
But there is still an unresolved question: why am I shooting almost simultaneously in several different genres.
In which of them did I succeed the most?
If you write a book about me, what directions should you disclose?
...That's probably why I don't have a book yet, because I've not come to a single concept.
I very rarely saw any night photos from street photographers, even less often a landscape.
This happens sometimes for documentarians when there is a mixture of genres.
But I have it all as separate almost opposite in meaning photo projects.
Night is one thing, street with shadows is another, reportage is the third.
The most important thing is that they all influence me or somehow work for the viewer.
To be continued...