I recently arrived at the milestone of 100,000 followers on Instagram, where I share my daily practice. Reflective questions about the work and how it might apply to the viewers life are a signature part of my offerings. The (mostly) timelapses are meant to be a meditative reprieve in the midst of an endless scroll. You do not have to cry online (or share a sob story), slowly turn a completed work towards the camera, or use trending audio. All that to say, the world needs your distinctive voice and there are others waiting to hear what you share. Thank you to all of those that have followed along for your thoughtful interaction! It means so much. 

Mako and I talked about what it is to be in relationship with materials and those that supply them. And what it is to be a human making art. 

I recently had the opportunity to reflect with Makoto Fujimura in our monthly conversation about the nuance of creating contemplative posts for social media, and the irony of offering timelapses as a way of slowing down. When I reflect on my own social media process it helps me to think of one friend, or one issue when filming and writing the caption. If I think at all about all the kind strangers (or predatory pilferers) following along, the parasocial unreality of it all, then I don't know what to say or how to share. I have said it many times now, humans (as of now) are still in control of the algorithm. You do not have to participate in a trend, you can show up in all your distinct and particularness and still be seen. And I share because I want to see what others are doing in their studios, how they are making all of the interesting things and maybe if they see my rudimentary offering they will also be inclined to let us into their studio. It is a communal offering to share, it is vunerable, it is a gift. Thank you for your kind attention. 

For a long time I have been trying to articulate what it means to take inspiration from someone's work and how it is distinct from copying. Recently I was inspired by this painting by Sterk. And embarked on my own grid exploration. I created squares of printed acrylic and then added a watercolor wash over the surface. When paired with the original work you can see how my work was clearly inspired by Strek's AND how it is something completely different. 

There is a place for copying work in school and in your private studio practice. You learn a lot by emulating others. Most frequently for me it means holding my brush in a different way, or learning the nuance of a different material application. AND most notably you and everyone that encounters your construction knows that what you have created is a copy. 

A few years ago a watercolor artist (with a large online following) asked if they could share my technique. I gave permission, because I thought that they would share using best practices. They did not. They directly copied my techniques, produced the work in a very similar color and then sold workshops incorporating these skills, while only once attributing to me. It was a disheartening experience that has left me wary of those that copy others work. 

That being said I encourage you all to be inspired. To see work that interests you, learn from it's foundation and take steps on your own path. 

Sarah Sentilles in Draw Your Weapons questions "Now that images can be used to kill, what does that mean for image makers?" As I think through the impications of this on drone warfare which is what Sentilles was specifically referencing I can't help, but think about how we now manipulate the images themselves, not only their interpretative context. Just this week an elected official shared images of a former elected official and his wife that depicted them as animals, debasingly racist. The images were removed from the social media platform. I then saw editorial images presented of this couple. They filled me with hope. And yet, it was the manipulation of their image without express, direct consent. How does the contemporary viewer reckon with the harmful nuance of each. The court of public opinion judges one more harshly and prasies the other; should both be judged? Especially when given the environmental impact and neural degradation of machine produced images?

CAUTION: These videos use strobe lighting and intense flashing effects, which may trigger seizures in individuals with photosensitive epilepsy or cause dizziness/disorientation.

Two Edits, two different experinces, not because the image changes, but because it's context does. These videos are details shots of a Razzle Dazzle painting. Razzle Dazzle refers to the camoflague technique used to confuse others about the direction your ship specfically is heading and at what speed (another thing that Sentilles references in Draw Your Weapons).