It's quite a jerking juxtaposition looking at nature when you've been working in a digital environment for so many days. Part of the stuff that I do is about faking reality. But when I look out at nature my brain fries at the infinite resolution required to really bringing something to life. There is so much detail in nature that I wonder if I've ever got a hope of bringing art to life. Like a scientist I take a snapshot akin to a frozen slice of time in order to inspect what is captured there. Looking at a frozen and therefore deadened slice of life we can certainly say a lot about it's characteristics but can we discern the dynamic activity of a living system? God, am I talking a bunch of shite? As I said my brain fries at the thought. I remember from physics that it is impossible to accurately determine, simultaneously, the exact location and the velocity of a moving object; any attempt at measurement inevitably involves change in the other. Do we face the same paradox in art? The closer we try to recreate reality is all the more likely we will fall short of the mark, like fore example a taxidermy dog. I know I am so bombarded with the photo-real that I have to yawn and honestly prefer quite often to look out the window and admire the view.