You once said - in relation to your ‘Nature Morte’ still-life series - that your goal was to achieve ‘ultimate illusion’. What was your goal with ‘Guns and Roses’?

There was much less intention behind this project than there was with ‘Nature Morte’. When I originally came up with the idea for ‘Guns’, I was thinking more about my ‘Movement’ series – the guns are man-made artifacts, manufactured for one purpose, with no design concept – they are purely functional. A gun is made by an engineer, and it is made for killing – nothing else - that’s what I find fascinating about the whole idea.

Did you originally consider that the ‘Roses’ series and the ‘Guns’ series could work as a cohesive collection?

No, not at all. I finished my ‘Guns’ series two or three years ago, and once it was done I thought maybe that I would use them in the future – but I needed something to soften them – showing the guns on their own would have been very stupid. I shot the roses without even thinking and when the negatives accidentally came together, ‘Guns and Roses’ was born! It’s stupid, but that’s why we had to do it. That said, the images when viewed together in the exhibition are actually quite devastating.

As you mentioned before, ‘Guns and Roses’ brings to mind your ‘Movement’ series – what is it about man-made objects that you find so fascinating?

There is a correlation between the aesthetic and efficiency – the aesthetic is our judgment, not the engineer’s judgment – it’s just a result. All that intelligence and engineering concentrated into one object -an object, which does its job perfectly - is fascinating. I hate guns, I am not violent – shooting the guns in my studio terrified me - but you don’t know where a gun has been or the history that it has had. It’s bizarre.

Your inspiration seems to come from a variety of different sources – what has been your most important influence?

The aesthetic influences me – the immediate power of an image. Everything I see is an influence, but I suppose – in terms of ‘Guns and Roses’ – Andres Serrano and Andy Warhol immediately spring to mind, and of course, Renoir’s painting ‘Bouquet dans une Loge'. I just stared at it for hours; I felt so much emotion in reaction to that painting, that I had to create something.

From where did you source the guns for the series?

They were all real. I hired them from a movie props company. They were all decommissioned, so they could only shoot blanks, but they were once real – some of them, the Colt for example, were probably in the Wild West! All these guns have a history, and they have all been used.

You’ve shot snakes, spiders, watches and still lives – what’s next for Guido Mocafico?

I can’t answer you properly because it will corner me in to doing something! If I talk about it, then I’m obliged to do it. I prefer to try and test, and then talk about it. Let’s just say that I’m still focusing on objects made by human beings.

What was the first thought you had this morning?

I’ve just arrived home from a holiday in Mauritius, and the first thing I thought was that I needed to call my wife and son, who are out there for an extra five days.

Describe your typical working day.

With photography, everything happens before the shoot. The actual gesture of taking a photograph accounts for maybe 10% of the entire process. Everything is already there and done long beforehand. When I arrive at the studio I know exactly what I have to do. I’m working all the time, even when I’m on the beach, on holiday I’m working!