For myself, I find it useful to distinguish between creation and discovery, and although that distinction forms a continuous spectrum rather than two isolated poles, I feel I am very much at the discovery end of the spectrum, and Goldsworthy quite far away towards the other. I am a jobbing journalist to Goldsworthy’s poet or novelist.

Whether it’s a hole torn in horse chestnut leaves, or sand stuck to a tree trunk, Goldsworthy’s creations are unmistakedly those of a culturally aware human acting in opposition to its natural forms and processes. I know that the process of nature winning back its own materials is an intrinsic part of Goldsworthy’s art, but the initial creative act is against entropy. That signature meandering line for example, is a clear sign of a specific named intelligence at work.

A theme that has emerged from my own photographing, and which I am currently developing in a conscious manner, is the way that nature gets on with its own art of the possible whether we are there to observe and validate its actions or not. I’m not hankering after primeval wilderness, but rather a rejuvenation of the idea that nature is amoral. In my favourites among my photographs, determinist human action is present in many ways, but not as a single creative act.

So, although I am flattered by the comparison, and I will readily acknowledge Goldsworthy as a inspiration, I don’t see a direct connection. If you have time and inclination, I’d be interested to hear how and why you do.