My hands aren’t beautiful and elegant like some of my friends, or elegantly or funkily manicured like others of my friends or students. They're not even young anymore.

I do think there is a deeper beauty in them though, in what they can do, express and make.

I talk with my hands.

I draw, paint, print, assemble, and de-construct.

I perform with them when I do photo shoots, the gestures they can make are vital in the full sense of that word, and full of meaning. As a child I learned that traditional Indian dance is as much a formalized language of hand gestures as of any other kind of movement, and I can understand that despite my natural disinclination to formalized anything, lol.

My hands are very plain-looking, but beautifully capable, working hands.

So often I notice something but don't record it. At home the other day though I did manage to photograph something that caught my eye.

Light and shadow; transparency, colour; shape and form; what more do we need for a bit of everyday beauty?

My recent artwork sales have me thinking about the process of buying and selling art. Funny how when you start thinking about something you stumble across related information and resources suddenly! 

So here (at right) is an article I came across and thought had some good reasons for buying original art instead of reproductions (which they refer to as prints; it is important though to distinguish between original prints and reproductions more explicitly). 

Obviously some original art is expensive but there is plenty out there that is not – for a one-of-a-kind, handmade work requiring specialized skills! An iPad is obsolete after only a few years whereas even artworks that cost less will last you a lifetime.

​If you have any thoughts on this topic, or the article link (above right), please share them in the comments below!

An iPad is obsolete after only a few years whereas even artworks that cost less will last you a lifetime.

In response to a 7-day nature photography challenge on Facebook, I've been layering up and altering some photographs (couldn't stick with straightforwardly produced ones for long!) and thought I'd share them with you on the blog.

Left: Royal Tree 2, shot in England last month.
Right: Nature Through a Fence, based on ivy I shot this fall, layered with a close-up of my Insubstantiated drawing/sculpture/installation as well as a detail from a painting of mine.

There is a lot of beauty when you can see the details – just click on the images to see them larger. Do you find these interesting? If so please let me know in the comments :-)

Chrysanthemums drinking in the afternoon sun in our kitchen window. 

At this time of year the sun is so fleeting, and cut flowers are any time of year. It's enough to make me want to write a haiku, if only I didn't have to move on to my next task. It's been nice taking this little beauty break though.

Recently, when my friend artist Patricia Singer generously suggested I teach a workshop at her studio, I didn't have to think about it for long. Looking at these photos I think you'll understand why I and this small group have been having a wonderful time working in her space and our great luck that the days – and our view of them – have been glorious!

We've been exploring contemporary mixed media, working with photos and other digitized imagery in a variety of ways and combined with all kinds of traditional media.

Collage, working into prints (by drawing, painting, cutting, sanding, peeling, piercing and even embroidering) and trying out numerous image transfer techniques has kept everyone very busy and the days seem to fly by! At the end of each day we take a look at what some other artists have been doing along the same lines to see what's possible and get fresh ideas.

Not everyone has a studio large enough for a group to work in, but if you do, it can be fun and convenient (you don't have to schlep all of your materials somewhere else!). Please get in touch if you'd like to discuss the possibility. Depending on the time of year, my availability can be quite limited.

While reading The Guardian (a UK newspaper) online, I came across the headline that Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, had had her first official portrait painted, I could hardly wait to see it. I mean she's a gorgeous, vivacious and charismatic young princess, (but not so young as to be a bland, blank slate)... what could go wrong?

So when I opened the story and saw a portrait Thomas Kincaide (the late, self-branded 'Painter of Light') might have been proud of, I was very, very disappointed.

Now I am usually someone who looks for and finds the positive in all kinds of artwork (ask any of my students, or people who attend my Gallery Walk & Talks), but faced with a portrait this bland, this made-for-greeting-cards, (in stark contrast to the 

the subject), it seems worthwhile to consider what went wrong. 

First, what went right?

If you visit the original story in The Guardian (just click on the painting), you will see that the painting is considerably larger than life, which seems suitable for the Duchess's personality. 

I have no doubt that the proportions and features were carefully measured and re-measured so as to be accurately rendered. 

Also, as in real life I'm sure, lots of attention was lavished on her hair.

OK, so what went wrong?

Too much focus on accurate rendering has led to a portrait that looks like Kate might look aged 50 having had some tasteful but effective cosmetic procedures done. 

The soft focus airbrush effect has got to die, it looks like a Breck shampoo ad from the 1970s, (remember them?) and terribly kitsch.

A person's beauty, personality and vitality come from within not from their surface appearance, the same surface applied to a different inner person would look different (as often happens with twins as they age for example). 

There are loads of gorgeous people who don't have classically beautiful features and proportions, who aren't young and perfect-looking but they make our heads swivel, they are magnetic.

The artist in this case needed to be freer in his application of the paint (make actual marks; give the paint the lively personality he needed to convey about the very lively Kate!); make artistic decisions, including altering the measured proportions of the face, to create a more accurate feeling for the person being portrayed. Accurate measurement ≠ truth. 

A key way artists take responsibility in their work is by making artistic decisions, whether that means editing, altering, adding, distorting and/or doing other things. Sometimes those decisions are going to work better than others, but they will still represent an attempt to communicate a point of view.

I feel badly for Emsley, the pressure of painting this beautiful and much-loved royal couldn't have been heavier, and while I'm sure he did his best I think he knows it's a disappointment because The Guardian reports he “said he had faced one difficulty with the portrait. Kate, he said, was just too beautiful to make a good subject.“

That does sound rather like making an excuse though doesn't it? I would have been happier if he'd said that her beauty was a challenge to adequately convey, because she is patently an excellent portrait subject, but the best subjects aren't only the easy ones.

What do you think of the new portrait? Please share your thoughts in the comments below.