My practice centers on reconfiguring the perception of the subject, exploring the relationship between subjective cognition and photographic work.

Visual information does not carry inherent meaning; it is through cognition that meaning is subjectively assigned. Variations in this process significantly shape the evaluation of images. By intentionally introducing meanings that diverge from commonly shared perceptual frameworks, I seek to alter the conditions under which photographs are received. To this end, I attempt to move beyond anthropocentric modes of thought.

Biodiversity, for instance, may be understood not as the selection of optimal traits, but as the persistence of heterogeneous forms that collectively sustain the conditions for survival. What endures is not a singular adaptation, but the coexistence of difference. This shift in perspective signals a departure from human-centered cognition.

From this standpoint, all subjects emerge as “imprints of underlying principles”—traces produced by fundamental physical laws. Through photographic practice grounded in this recognition, I reconfigure the perceptual and interpretive frameworks through which subjects are understood.

My earlier work focused on subjects through which a personal sense of beauty could be recognized, primarily within Japanese landscapes. I consider this period as the first phase in the search for an appropriate mode of expression.

Building on this foundation, the second phase introduced a deliberate attempt to reconfigure perception. Shiitake mushrooms became a primary motif, through which I observed shifts in viewers’ responses.

In the current phase, this approach is extended across a wider range of subjects, continuing to explore the possibilities of perceptual reconfiguration.

I began to question why human thought tends to organize itself through binary oppositions. It may be that such a structure efficiently generates diversity, not by assigning countless individual directions, but by embedding opposing axes within each individual, allowing variation to emerge through their differences.

This diversity, in turn, may contribute to the persistence of life as a form of risk distribution. In this sense, conflict and opposition can be understood as byproducts of such variation.

Yet, we continue to seek alternative meanings. We frame diversity as a condition for dignity, though this framing itself may be a product of evolutionary processes that favor attachment to life and a strong sense of self.

Paradoxically, while diversity is emphasized, the value of life is often shared in a uniform manner. This structure narrows thought and resists revision, thereby sustaining itself. This may be described as anthropocentric thinking.

Perhaps most striking is that this structure operates without intention. Human beings, like all forms of life, are not exceptional, but are momentary configurations arising within physical processes. From stellar fusion to atmospheric circulation to biological activity, these phenomena form a continuous chain.

Even the desire to regard life as exceptional may itself be an outcome of anthropocentric cognition.

At the same time, it is impossible to fully escape this framework. As long as we remain human, we exist within it. This inherent limitation prevents complete optimization, yet may also contribute to the persistence of life. Ongoing conflict can be seen as one of its consequences.

If so, the object toward which our frustration is directed is neither an enemy before us nor an ally behind us, but the underlying principles that exist alongside us. To recognize this requires a departure from anthropocentric thinking. My photographic works, conceived as “imprints of underlying principles,” are intended as a point of entry into such a shift in perception.