Prompt O’ Ween 2023 was super fun! It was also really tough and I hate having to say that I sort of didn’t finish. I only got to day 20 this year because this whole year has been kicking my butt and October was no exception. What to do??
It was October 31 and a Tuesday, so I had a select few hours outside of work and trick-or-treating to get 11 pieces done. The way I saw it, there were three options:
Do 11 fast sketches. Like, really fast.
Don’t finish.
Use AI.
The problem with quick sketches is that when my brain wants to finish a piece, the piece gets finished. It won’t matter if it takes a few minutes or a few hours, which is part of how I end up so behind on art challenges. Giving up on the whole thing didn’t feel like a great option either. Quitting? Ew.
AI-Flavored Prompt O’ Ween 2023
So that left only one option. I used AI! There’s an app called StarryAI (this isn’t a promo, it’s just what I used) that lets you train the AI on your own style. I hadn’t opened the app in a super long time because the whole topic using AI to make art is pretty dicey. But it took 50 credits to train it on my own art style and I just happened to have enough credits to train the AI and get my 11 Prompt O’ Ween drawings.
You can add up to 30 images so I quickly scrolled through my phone for 30 finished pieces (including the 20 I had done for Prompt O’ Ween 2023) and dumped them in. One by one, I entered the prompts for days 21 through 31, getting four images back for each one.
The results were interesting. They didn’t totally hit the prompts and weren’t what I would have done, but that’s mostly because I entered only the prompt and no additional information. What was really cool was that it sort of hit my art style. Most of it looked like stuff I would do. Some of it was better than what I might have done, which is a total mind job. It was also oddly inspiring and gave me some ideas on things I might want to try.
Georgia O’Keeffe had such a prolific career and interesting life that one little blog post would not nearly be enough to talk about her. Still, that’s not the reason I did things this way for Artist of the Month this time. Life got all kinds of crazy in November and I needed help writing! What to do??
As it turns out, a lot of content creators use AI to generate their copy. It can be used for any point in the process, whether it’s coming up with blog topics, generating ad copy, or fleshing out a complete article. I wanted to see how well AI could write an informative blog post on Georgia O’Keeffe, hopefully giving you some facts you didn’t know without going too far into detail.
She was beautiful in every photo Stieglitz took of her
I Tried Three Different (Free) AI Writers
The short answer is that AI was only able to do so much with the project. That being said, you get what you pay for and I only tried free options. I’m wasn’t compensated by anyone for doing this, I just had to get it done!
Rytr
First up was Rytr, which lets you generate up to 10,000 characters (1500-2000 words) per month or free. You can generate a post section by section, but when the results aren’t so great you may find yourself burning through your character limit. It did a great job of generating introductions, but anything past that was very general and used a lot of words to say very little. BUT, I think if I spent more time with it I could make it work – it’s super easy to use. Rytr also has the cheapest paid plan at $9 per month where most others start at $29.
Simplified
Simplified lets you complete a blog post section by section and caps you at 3,000 words per month. It has loads of other services and features, but it did get some facts wrong in my blog post and started repeating itself after a while.
Smart Copy (Unbounce)
Smart Copy works on a credit-based system, giving you 40 free credits per month to work with. Unfortunately, the writer only comes with a paid subscription, but you can get a free three day trial. It costs one credit every time you generate copy, but it stinks when you don’t get good results and you have to try again. That can burn through those credits pretty quick! Still, I got the best “first-try” results from this service.
The Article AI Wrote About Georgia O’Keeffe
So which service did I use? All of them! Most of it came from Smart Copy, but there’s a little of all of them in the biography. It doesn’t go at all as far deep into Georgia O’Keeffe’s life as I would have, but I think using AI for that would take more massaging and more money.
I still think it came out okay and I plan to use AI for other things in the future. Let’s be real here, writing all this extra stuff about writing is taking just as much effort as it would have to just write the darn article. At the end of the day, it didn’t really save me much time – it just made things easier since I’m not cross-referencing and fact checking.
Anyhoooooo… here’s what AI wrote about Georgia O’Keeffe:
My Minions – MUAHAHAHA!
The Life and Career of Georgia O’Keeffe
Introduction
From her abstract flower paintings to her Southwestern landscapes, Georgia O’Keeffe was an iconic American painter who left an indelible mark on the art world. Her life was as inspiring as her artwork, as she continually pushed boundaries and explored new artistic visions. In this blog article, we’ll explore Georgia O’Keeffe’s life and career, and take a closer look at the woman behind the art. Her story is sure to move and captivate anyone who loves the world of art.
Early Life
Georgia O’Keeffe was born on November 15, 1887 in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin. She was the second of seven children born to dairy farmers Francis Caledonia O’Keeffe and Ida Totto O’Keeffe. Georgia showed an interest in art at a young age and even sold her first charcoal drawing at the age of 14. She went on to study at the Art Institute of Chicago and later the Art Students League of New York.
Both of these institutions exposed her to different styles of art, including the basis for her future signature style – abstraction. In 1908, she transferred to the Virginia School of Art and completed her degree in just two years. After graduation, she took a teaching job in Texas to help support her family.
Career
In 1916, O’Keeffe moved to New York City to pursue her art career. She met photographer Alfred Stieglitz who would become her biggest champion and mentor. In 1918, he gave her a solo show at his art gallery, which was hugely successful. Her work attracted a lot of attention, both positive and negative. Some people were intrigued by her paintings, while others found them shocking and explicit.
Despite the mixed reception, O’Keeffe’s career continued to thrive. In the 1920s, she made several trips to the American Southwest, which would become a major source of inspiration for her. She was fascinated by the landscape and Native American culture of the region. She even built a home and studio in New Mexico, which she called Ghost Ranch.
In the 1930s and 1940s, O’Keeffe’s health began to decline, but she continued to paint.
In 1946, she had to stop working altogether due to macular degeneration, a condition that caused her to lose her eyesight. Despite this, she continued to live independently until 1984 when she suffered a stroke. She died in 1986 at the age of 98.
O’Keeffe’s Legacy
Georgia O’Keeffe was an iconic artist who left a lasting impression on the art world. Her life was as inspiring as her artwork, as she continually pushed boundaries and explored new artistic visions. While she is best known for her flower paintings and Southwest landscapes, her work spans a wide range of genres and styles. She is truly a master of American art.
But What About the Project?
If I didn’t have time for the article, then of course I didn’t have time for the project this month either. Not worry – AI has that covered too! I used the starry.ai app (another service that uses credits – you get five free every day) to generate some images. You can pick prompts, artists, styles, media, and even a starter image if you like. It took three tries to get some O’Keeffe-esque art, but AI still made some pretty art along the way – and it did it despite a couple of typos – whoops!
Group 1
The first prompt, “Flowers, Georgia O’Keeffee, oil on canvas”, generated some pretty flower paintings, but her flowers were closeups.
Group 2
The prompt for the second group was “Close up of flower, oil on canvas, watercolor”. Georgia used watercolors early in her career before switching to oil so I thought that might help. The result was a little closer to what we want, but not quite there. I can’t remember if I left out “Georgia O’Keeffe” on purpose or not, so I’m just going to say I had a good reason to!
Group 3
The last group turned out pretty neat with the prompt “Extreme close up of flower, O’keeffe, oil on canvas, watercolor”. I don’t know if I’d call these extreme close ups, but they’re still pretty cool.
Conclusion
AI did pretty well, right? Still, it barely mentions Alfred Stieglitz and doesn’t talk about her impact on feminist movements and the sexualization of her art. I added in a couple of images because we’re talking about art (and we gotta SEO the thing…).
The resources I was using for the original post are listed below. For a more serious look at Georgia O’Keeffe’s work, check them out. I also highly recommend this book. It’s a fantastic read and includes a look at the correspondences between Georgia and the people in her life.
Thank you so much for reading! Don’t forget to check out the other Artist of the Month posts. They go back to January of this year!
Happy Birthday, Marie Laurencin! Remember that husband of hers that thought he was the better artist? If you Google his name you get results for her work. Try it – his name was Otto van Waëtjen. We’ve already looked at their work side by side, but what if Marie actually painted one of his compositions?
I decided to try it out and paint one of Otto’s paintings in Marie’s style. Is it how she would have actually done it? Probably not. Did she care what he thought? Also probably not! Do we need to do this to figure out that Marie was the better artist? Not at all!
Still, it was a fun exercise. Remember these two paintings from last time?
Marie Laurencin, Judith, 1930
Otto von Waetjen, Two Elegant Young Ladies, 1925
The process was simple. I plunked Otto’s painting down in a Clip Studio Paint project and sampled the colors from Marie’s painting to paint over it. His elegant young ladies had too many clothes on for a Laurencin painting, so I did a little draping and added the pearls. Here’s the finished piece:
I don’t think I did Marie Laurencin’s art any justice, but this was a fun project! Here it is in action:
For the September Artist of the Month (Romare Bearden) I pretty much HAD to do a collage. The thing is, I didn’t know what it should be about. I’ve never especially identified with any one heritage, despite being a potluck of beer-slugging nationalities. So what to make?
What happened is I went in with the worst plan – no plan at all. I decided to take images from all of the Artists of the Month so far – an image of the artist and an image of one of their works. I thought maybe if I dropped all of these image into a project and “let them speak to me” that somehow I’d get this neat collage out of it. Hey, sometimes that approach works. Not so much this time.
The biggest regret I have over this is not doing a timelapse. At first I thought it wouldn’t be interesting, but as I was playing with pieces of images I realized it was a real missed opportunity! Maybe I’ll try making another collage with timelapse turned on – and I’ll be sure to have a plan before i start.
Sorry for the cringy title. I put it down as a placeholder figuring I’d come up with something better by the time I got done writing this. You know what else was hard? Coming up with a project for Kjartan Slettemark! He was edgy and political. As much as I admire his work, political is not something I do here. I want my community to be a safe place to chat, to be silly, to talk about a good/bad/boring/exciting day without any judgement.
On top of that, Kjartan loved his plastic and how do you digitize that? Looking back at Nixon Visions, I could have taken his image and processed it in a bunch of different ways, but in the end it was something else that spoke to me. The Poodle costume.
I love everything about this thing. The best part is that it all came about because of a typo. Six months of work to prove a point against system that dogged the man for years over his mental health all because they couldn’t spell. So good!
Then I came across this image:
That’s when I knew I needed to paint a sexy KjARTan poodle and that’s exactly what happened. One layer, black and white, done in one sitting.
It was so much fun to paint! A little dark, a little weird – it’s the kind of art I love to make. So there you have it, my little homage to Kjartan Slettemark!
Tenebrism is one of my favorite art concepts! The only problem is I get a little heavy handed with my shading. So for this month’s project, which centers on tenebrism and chiaroscuro, I wrangled that urge to make every shadow pitch black. (If you missed my last blog, there’s a quick overview of tenebrism vs. chiaroscuro.)
I knew I wanted to paint something in grayscale and overlay the color. That way I could focus on the values and get the contrast just how I wanted it. But what to paint?? I scrolled and scrolled through old projects and sketches and there it was. The Yip Yips.
I don’t even remember why I drew them, but they were already shaded, ready for tenebrist drama. They just needed something to look at. At first I thought I could plunk a candle down and have my single light source and get to work, but it just didn’t feel right. The Yip Yip martians were always trying to figure out some sort of technology like a phone or a radio. The solution? Use technology to figure it out!
Since I was streaming, I used MixItUp to help out. My prompt command pulls an adjective, noun, and verb to give my something to draw, but I also have each one of those broken out into commands of their own. I hit that noun command until it gave me something that could work. Eventually it gave me cake, which made me think of cupcakes, and who doesn’t love a cupcake?? Plus I could plunk a candle in the top and still have the original idea. Sure, it’s not technology, but baking is all chemistry and that’s pretty amazing too!
A few quick adjustments to the sketch and we’re off to the races! Next, I mapped everything out with three gray tones (light, medium, dark) and blended it all together. I wanted some different textures, so the martians were blended with a hair texture brush, the cupcake and table with the regular blender, and the eyes with the blur tool.
This is the part where I changed course. The original plan was to use the Rubens color set and make this a Baroque-style painting, buuuuut… I couldn’t bring myself not to make the Yip Yips pink and blue. So the color set went out the window, but I did use one of the browns for the background!
After overlaying the color, the shadows were a bit washed out. There are a bunch of ways to deal with this, but I took the quick and dirty option. I used the airbrush tool and (gently!) swiped black over the darkest areas and it picked up those spots that really needed to be dark shadows.
Now that it’s all balanced out better, we can call it done! Sort of? Sorry, but for me it’s just not dark enough! It’s chiaroscuro, but not tenebrism. For the sake of this article, and my heart’s desire for blackness, I corrected the contrast on the exported file.
Aaaaah, that’s better! And it still doesn’t go as dark as half my other stuff! I was 100% determined to do this in one sitting – and I did. It took six hours and I could spend another six picking at all the things my brain can’t unsee. But I think it was a good exercise in contrast and I’m pretty happy with it – yip yip yip yip yip yip yip yip uuuuuh huh!
Technique is something we haven’t talked about enough for Artist of the Month. Lucky for us, Peter Paul Rubens is a *fabulous* master to study when it comes to materials and application in painting! The man was able to finish a masterpiece in a matter of hours thanks to the media and techniques he used. So how did he do it?
Influence of a Master
Rubens was heavily influenced by Titian, a talented and prolific Italian painter from the 16th century (that’s really an understatement). The two artists just missed each other by a couple of decades, as Titian died in 1576, the year before Rubens was born. Still, Rubens was able to enjoy Titian’s work in travels to Italy and copied the master’s work well into his own career. In total he painted 21 Titians!
Venus of Urbino. Titian. 1538.
Although Rubens studied the master in depth, they worked in different ways. Titian started with a complete composition painted in grayscale called a grisaille as an underpainting. Then he would add color and depth with transparent glazes. Rubens wanted to create the same effect, but with an all prima technique. This literally means “at first attempt” and refers to wet in wet painting. Think Bob Ross painting happy little trees and making sure every bush had a friend – that’s alla prima.
Tools of the Trade
There are few things Rubens did to speed up his process. First, he almost always started with a finished drawing. This meant he didn’t have to worry about the composition while he painted – he was able to focus completely on his technique.
The next key to his craft was the medium he used in his paint. Described as a “thick jelly”, it consisted of 10 parts each linseed oil, turpentine, and mastic tears, and one part litharge (or powdered white lead pigment or white lead paste). Talking about the properties of these materials is for another post (let me know if you want to jump down the rabbit hole!), but this medium gave Rubens the ability to apply both transparent and translucent layers while retaining the texture of the brushstroke. It gave him the flexibility to scumble in colors or blend them seamlessly.
The medium was also a bit of a double-edged sword. It would start to dry after a few hours, making it unworkable. So Rubens was able to work a piece quickly, but it was partly because he had to.
Can the Technique Be Digitized?
For our project this month I decided to follow the same steps Rubens did to make a painting. Since Rubens’ first step was to start with a finished drawing, I grabbed a sketch I did from some unknown length of time ago and created a color palette based on colors he actually used (more on that next post).
These are some of the colors Rubens used.
The Base
He would start on a light umber background, so I took the umber and lightened up about halfway for my base. Next he would sketch his composition on top of that with a wash of darker brown, using it to map out the shadows and line the lighter areas. I copy pasta’d my sketch onto my base, locked the pixels, and colored it in with Van Dyck brown. It’s a little cheatsy, but I figured it was about the same thing.
The problem with this is that the sketch was done with a pencil brush, so I was starting with a rough base. As I continued with the painting, I found myself constantly fighting that roughness and making sure it was all blended in. Maybe throwing a blur over it before painting would have helped, but hey – hindsight.
Next he took a medium brown tone to lay in the lighter areas, typically where the skin tones would go. I lightened up the Van Dyck brown a bit and filled in the skin areas. It really did make a beautiful base there – something I’ll try again in the future.
Adding Color
Color be added next. Red for lips and cheeks, blues for… blue stuff. Honestly I derped a little bit on this part. I looked at my piece and thought, there’s not that much color… For some reason my brain didn’t register that the car and the hair needed color. I added a touch of cochineal lake red to the lips and it mixed with the base into a beautiful soft pink. Then I put some indigo in the eyes and they looked totally creepy. So I tried lazurite blue, but it didn’t help much. I never was able to paint all the creep out of those eyes, but thankfully a good highlight can help.
Creating Depth
Graytones came next. This is how Rubens built up light and shadow – with various tones of plain old gray that he mixed himself. I wanted the denim jacket to be gray, so I skipped the color and went right in with gray. Against the warm background it gave it a bluish appearance. Then I went in and defined the darker areas and modeled the lighter areas.
At this point I started to wonder if I should be using separate layers for this. The grays didn’t always mix nicely into the dark browns and it got frustrating at times. It also wasn’t always the smoothest blend, which shows in the finished piece. There are areas in the jacket where the warmth peeking through is kind of nice. I feel like there are times where doing that on purpose could be useful, but making it look intentional might require an extra layer or two. That being said, if it’s all prima, we should be going all in on one layer, right?
Adding More Color!
After the gray, Rubens would have added stronger colors to add more depth. The color forced the gray back, while the gray pushed the color forward.
At this point I added color to the car. I went with a mix of reds and browns. My attempt at chrome trim was a little half-hearted, but a little more time would have gotten it there. I also added color to the hair. I don’t think I did enough with the gray tones because I didn’t get the depth I really wanted. Again, using additional layers probably would have fixed this and I wondered if I should redo the whole thing.
With all the color and depth, Rubens would have added transparent layers of reds and grays to the shadows to create bounce highlights. I missed this step. Oops. Then it was time to add the darkest shadows with translucent darks and brightest highlights with opaque light color. I went back in and darkened up the deepest parts and popped in those highlights. Overall the piece looked instantly better. I’m not at all biased because contrast is my favorite thing ever. Nope, not at all.
Did I Replicate the Technique?
Rubens’ work didn’t come together until the end and I found that to be the case with my painting too. It was those final applications of value and color that made it cohesive. Did I nail his process digitally? Definitely not. But I think I could with another try. It took a round of trying it all out to see how it really works. I’m not mad about the way my painting turned out and I have a few more tricks up my sleeve for future work.
Trying out the techniques of the old masters is 100% worth trying out whether you work traditionally or digitally. I got my information from the book “How to Paint Like the Old Masters” by Joseph Sheppard. He talks about many other famous painters and their materials and techniques. Check it out if you’re interested in seeing how some the most famous artistic minds worked!
If you want to see me work on these projects in real time, I stream it on Twitch and YouTube. I’d love to share the experience with you!
Art. Deco. Prompts. When the idea hit me I thought it was brilliant! Then I asked myself what kind of masochist I really am… but that’s how it is with prompts. My poor little brain rides a rollercoaster every single time. In the end it was the perfect solution to the lack of a project I had for Art Deco month.
What is Art Deco?
I don’t think I touched on what Art Deco is enough when I wrote about Tamara de Lempicka earlier this month. She was an Art Deco painter, but Art Deco was mainly an architectural and decorative movement, and here we are making digital Art Deco. For the sake of making sure there’s a real definition this time, here’s a blurb from Britannica:
“Art Deco is a popular design style of the 1920s and ’30s characterized especially by sleek geometric or stylized forms and by the use of man-made materials.”
The Britannica link there has a good overview of the style. Now let’s move on to the thing I did…
What Are Prompts?
If you haven’t seen one of my streams where we do prompts, I have a handy little command that grabs a random adjective, noun, and verb and posts it to chat. Whatever comes up, I have to draw. Sometimes the verb requires another prompt, like grabbing. What is the subject of the prompt grabbing? So we run the command again and things start getting weird(er).
Usually I don’t keep track of the prompts after they’re done. It’s fun to see what viewers think they are and to go back to the old ones and try to remember what I was supposed to draw. There are some that I really have no idea what they were supposed to be!
This prompt is different because it has a record. But this is the only time and place I’m going to put what it was.
skinny clown thinking, strong house mowing
At least I’m pretty sure that’s what it was…
The Project
I knew I wanted to work with black and gold lines for the background. If you do an image search for Art Deco you’ll see gold with either black or dark blue quite a bit. So after a quick sketch I started laying down lines, starting with a diamond in the center to frame the prompts that would be put on top. From there it was all intuitive – I just kept placing gold lines where I thought they looked good. It was sooooo relaxing. Seriously, try it. It’s so zen!
Then came the clown, house, and mowers. At first I wasn’t going to shade them, but they really needed it. If you look at vintage Art Deco advertisements, the figures generally are lightly shaded, so that’s what I did. It was very love-hate toward the end there, but looking at it now I’m really happy with how it turned out! What do you think?
So far this month we’ve explored the work of Op Art painter Bridget Riley. She spent decades exploring perception and the viewer’s gaze. Is that something I could even begin to touch in this quick project?
I decided to keep it simple and do a project I remember from middle school. Only this time I used Clip Studio Paint instead of a ruler and colored pencils. By the time I was done, I realized it would have been faster in pencil, but that’s probably because I’ve never tried to do anything so precise in digital.
Check out this first one:
If it looks familiar, you might have done something like this in school as well. You start with straight lines converging in the center like in a spider web. Then in each section draw the curves, alternating the direction as you go around. You end up with a wobbly, web-like pattern. Now color in every other sections and voilà – Op Art!
I took it a step further and added shading and highlights. Then I wondered – does it need that? I looked through other Op Art images and saw that it’s the use of shape, line, and color that makes the piece. You think I’d have known that already since I just wrote about that exact thing, but I learn better by doing. 🙂
What do you think? Shading or no shading? Do we have to be purists about it? Of course not – it’s art!
Next I used my random color picker to add different color combinations. For all of them I was cringing as the second color came up. But after the fact I sort of love all of them!
I didn’t adjust the shading for each one and it shows. For these, I think the unshaded versions are way better.
I made one other piece, but this time I started with a single wavy line. Then I copied it and shifted it slightly over and over again until the canvas was full.
I liked it just black and white, but tried out a few different colors with the color picker anyway. A little shading and highlight (this time it needed it!) and here’s the result:
This was a really fun project. You should try it too! I’d love to see what you make!
This month we explored the hows and the whys of Michelangelo’s masculine women. We know that he used male models as many Renaissance artists did. It’s likely that his masculine representations of women was intentional. But when you alter the represented gender of your model, how much does it unintentionally affect your art?
When we represent male or female, it’s not just about anatomy. The female form may be depicted in softer, more submissive poses. In contrast, the male form may be depicted in angular, rigid poses. Strength is traditionally male and emotion is traditionally female. One of the best illustrations of this point is Jacques-Louis David’s painting, Oath of the Horatii.
Oath of the Horatii, Jacques-Louis David, 1784
To the left we see the men about to go to war. They are standing at attention, arms outstretched as they reach for their swords before battle. Their limbs are straights, creating sharp angles; they mimic the sharpness and rigidity of their swords.
To the right we see their wives, faint from the emotions of saying good-bye and perhaps never seeing their husbands again. Their postures are slumped, given to the difficult moment. The drapery accentuates the curves and softness of their forms.
To further explore this concept, I drew six figure studies. The first set was from a male model – a male, a female, and an androgynous sketch. The second set was the same from a female model.
The Male Model
The first sketch was as expected. It was a male model and a male sketch.
In the second sketch, I found that the shoulders and waist were broader than I meant them to be and that the legs seems too thick. I kept making adjustments – making the legs longer, bringing the waist in, adding curves. Part of me wanted to fight it – why does she have to look traditionally female. Why was I softening muscles, making her look weaker? Did she have to be that thin to still look feminine? Perhaps the most telling part of this – I only had questions like this when drawing this sketch. In the end I wanted to give her more muscles and make her look stronger than the male sketch, but still feminine. As I write this I’m asking myself – Why didn’t I do that??
The third sketch was the easiest, but also probably the laziest. I simply drew something in between the first two. Looking back, that wasn’t the best approach. If I wanted to turn this sketch into something more, it would lack substance. There’s no strength, no emotion – it’s just there. Rather than blend the masculine and the feminine into something beautiful, I gave the figure nothing. It’s not suppose to be about the absence of masculine and feminine. Rather the lines that define gender should be blurred and their characteristics used to bring more to the figure.
The Female Model
Maybe in my subconscious my feelings about the previous sketches came out in this one. I think the feminine sketch of the female model looks less feminine than the feminine sketch of the male model. I also like this one better.
The male version is definitely softer here than the male from the previous pose. At first I thought it was the pose, but it isn’t. This figure has less defined muscles.
The first question that came up with this sketch was should they be wearing a shirt. The only reason the chest is covered at all is because I was streaming when I drew these. If I had done these on my own, I would have left the top bare and I think the sketch would have worked better. Actually I would have done all the sketches completely nude if I didn’t have to worry about Twitch having a cow about a butt crack and some nipples. Regardless, I don’t think this sketch fares much better than the other androgynous one for all the same reasons.
Overall I think each of these drawings would have benefitted from existing in an environment and having a purpose within a composition. Then every feature added or excluded, whether feminine or masculine, would have had more intent behind it. Still, it was an interesting exercise and it’s something I would like to continue to explore.
