I began practicing collage by chance; It wasn't a part of my culture. I felt more free to try different things and the speed of execution it allows suited me. My approach is minimalist: something like a 2 pieces puzzle. I try to emancipate the images and give them a second life, lead to forget where from they come and from what they are made. A poetic recycling which sketches film scenes which don't exist, drawings with flesh and bones, photographic hallucinations and imagined paintings. I see collage as a funnel Into which the other mediums can rush.

It's really interesting to notice that you aren't only focused on collage: in some of your works you prefer painting directly on photos, mixing several art mediums. How do you choose the right medium?
Collage and photomontage are majority in my production but every medium has its peculiarities and I try not to lock myself there. To mix various things is a way to escape. When somebody ask me for what I'm doing I answer spontaneously that I make images, without specifying their nature, hoping that we envisage them as such. So the good medium is the one which knows how to be forgotten.

As you said, your photos loose their native meaning for a new one, mostly involving cynicism. How is the audience supposed to understand these meanings? The only clarifying key seems to be the title, but is it true or does it just baffle the audience?
I choose a title for some series or exhibitions but all my images are untitled, probably for reasons noted above: i try to avoid any interference between them and the spectator and i have no ideas of how he has to understand them. Once the image is ended, it must be capable of managing alone, of meeting people and facing the misunderstandings. It doesn't really belong to me any more. We should discover an image as we meet a person. The level of concern defines our relationship to her and the closer we are more it is difficult to define her in a few words. They're mixed feelings behind the creation and i hope cynicism is just a small part of mine (the bad one).

I’d like to ask you something about three of your artworks. In "Renaissance" and "Photos de famille" you replace the face of the original subject with an older one; time, indeed, seems to act on everything. Is it really true? Are there some exceptions? Moreover, is the replacing of people strictly related to the original ones, such as family members, or do they instead stand for any possible evolution that time brings?
"Renaissance" et "Photos de famille" are my first collage series and were the opportunity to return to the drawings which I did not have been able to make. Thanks to the realism of the photography my characters took life and the neutrality of family photos constituted a perfect set where they could interfere. Their origin (mine or those of unknowns founded in the flea market) wasn't important. The face was older only when it was a kid (who became a dwarf) but the aging and the work of time were not my subjects; In a way, they're part of the material. I focused on the face, which seemed to be the key to upset the whole image without removing her any credibility.

In Climax, we can say that twisting and painting on the faces, in some way, hides the idea of character. Can we call it "ego losses"?
They disappeared for the benefit of the only one: mine. We should call it "Super Ego" (but i don't like the title)