I'm actually not sure if I can provide any deep questions for you, but I can at least tell you I'm constantly motivated to be self-reliant and self-dependent. The last thing I ever want to be is trapped, and I refuse to accept learned helplessness as a reality on principle. I want to be the one to define myself, not have the world or others define me. I firmly believe that, while I may not always have a choice in the circumstances I live through, I do have a choice in how cooperative I am to those circumstances.

So my relationship with SM fundamentally changed when I recognized the bigger forces at play and how much I was cooperating with it, which lead to the inevitable questions of 'why am I complying? what's stopping me from changing the game? what do I actually want for myself here?'

and since I'm a stubborn contrarian I just flipped the bird and decided to figure out how to swim against the tides.

And that I don't think there's anything more you can do other than go "no" and do something different until you figure out what works.

I work across multiple projects yes! I think the question may be too big to answer, or maybe the answer is too simple.

I'm a naturally organized person in that I manage my affairs very regimented (I am neurotically and compulsively into cleaning/organizing/categorizing), but I'm also very bipolar so consistent workflow has been an eternal problem I've tried and still trying to evolve into something more reliable to myself.

So basically: every project I have is very organized and very easy to bring back up and work on at any given moment. Whether or not I have the energy, focus, or creative juice to work on it is always a toss up. It actually benefits me to have multiple rather than singular because I often work in 2-4 weeks of hyper fixated bursts before I hit saturation and I have to switch gears and focus on something else.

My best system for consistency so far is whatever "gear" I'm in (like, if I'm currently in the gear to work on Gaze) then I create a quota system where I try to hit a certain production output per day before I inevitably hit a wall and have to pivot.

As a result a lot of projects I have are constantly progressing but not really publishing. A lot of it, I admit, is anxiety of getting something moving only to immediately lose momentum on it, so I've been trying to create a system where there's some kind of queue or buffer that can account for that. It's been a journey -- but even I'm getting frustrated by it so hoping to have results before 2025

(and thank you: Jolanka headshot! It was just me dicking around warming up and I wasn't really planning on finishing it but I've gotten so many lovely compliments I'll do my best now to lol)

I'm pretty overwhelmed reading this and not really sure how to respond, honestly... other than thank you for holding me in such high esteem and that my work is so meaningful and engaging for you and your partner, even a decade later... It's actually really lovely to know and hear that there are people who bond specifically over the art I make, that's really heartwarming.

Congratulations on your webcomic and passing such a high number of pages, that's not a small feat. It's flattering to know that I am credited with any part of helping inspiring your great work. I hope you keep making the art you want to make and it brings good things into your life.

I would love to!!

Bocchama is just the biggest sweetheart in the world... chows have a reputation of being aloof, antisocial, and generally very stubborn and territorial. I think the only thing that applies to Bocchama in that list is 'stubborn' lol...

He's the gentlest most pacifist floof you'll ever meet. A real Little John or Brother Buddha type. He absolutely loves to socialize and he wants to be friends with EVERY dog he meets, which is a tragedy because dogs are instinctively quite scared of him and get really nervous/aggressive -- but that doesn't stop him!! He will sit down and let a dog bark loudly in his face just staring and radiating capybara energy until the doggo calms down and gives Bocchama a chance. He's never intimidated.

He's extremely temperate, calm, and full of love and warmth. He can get easily spooked by unfamiliar places, large crowds, and faces but he warms up pretty quickly. He loves cuddles and kids. He loves playing. Despite not really ever being angry or bothered he does have a dramatic diva streak... he doesn't ask for a lot or often, so when he does he feels quite entitled to it. His name is really apt because he really is an imperious little prince.

He's a little celebrity in my neighbourhood, everyone is just obsessed with being friends with him.

in my experience it really has very little to do with whatever it is you're drawing or want to draw, it has to do with your relationship with yourself in the moment of drawing. A lot of the time "redraw hell" (if I were to agree that exists) is more a manifestation of forcing the process and needing the result to be a certain way out of insecurity, anxiety, exhaustion, or time limitations.

I believe creativity is strongest and most smooth when you remind yourself of what you want your result to be, or remind yourself of the "why" behind what you need your vision to be. Do you need the result to be good, or do you need your result to say or express what you want it to say or express? To me there's a very clear distinction when I'm redrawing the same shapes, like, 10 times on repeat, vs redrawing something 10 times in 10 different ways to try to figure out the proper expression of my vision.

Whenever you're forcing the process, you always lose sight of what the result is supposed to represent. As a result, the process becomes a representation of needing to avoid failure, to avoid dissatisfaction, to avoid perceived judgment and shame. It stops being about what you're drawing and why you're drawing it, and instead starts being about self-soothing.

Redraw whatever the hell you want, how many times you want, if you think what you're redrawing is a more satisfying result for your expression. However if you're redrawing something because you're just trying to avoid a bad result, or bad judgment (even self-judgment), I'd say sleep on it and take a break.

Apologies in advance, this is going to sound harsh.

'What is different then?' It's not complicated. A computer is not a human. A computer can't think. A computer can't feel. A computer can't experience. A computer can't learn. To equate a computer's ability to copy and regurgitate data to a human's ability to communicate through art is so existentially offensive as a premise that it's inherently bad faith, even if you yourself aren't asking it in bad faith. You may as well be asking me what's the difference between a plagiarist and a writer, because if that difference between those two things is even entertained as a debate, then either you're being made an idiot or you are indulging idiots. At worst, both.

No one seems to debate this when it comes to the idea of, say, athletes. A machine can ostensibly produce the same results as a basketball player, throw a ball in the hoop and score points against other machines. But that's patently ridiculous, isn't it? People don't watch sports for the concept of throwing balls in hoops, people watch sports for human spectacle and physical ability.

It's a mistake to think art is only about the results, that's capitalist thinking in that only the end conclusion of the process has any value (fiscally or otherwise). Propaganda made by mediocre people who think being an 'idea guy' is the only important part of any project. Art is about ability, it's about expression, it's about making history. It's about human labor and craftsmanship. It's about being alive.

I can expand on it sure!

Perfectionism is best understood as an anxiety or trauma response for a need of control through trying to negate the inverse of it. In simpler terms, basically if you constantly control/manage away the flaws of something, then you're controlling the result to be the best possible quality.

Which sure sounds nice and practical, even strategic -- until you account that there is no result of whatever calibre that will be satisfying or accepted, because nothing can be without flaws or critical weakness.

That's why it's inherently a state of dysfunction, because it's not about chasing an acceptable result, because nothing will ever be accepted as good enough. If they somehow a perfectionist does meet every standard they're going for, they'll simply move the goalposts so that it doesn't count, somehow. The point is to never be satisfied. It's a mistake to assume the perfectionist wants a good result. They don't know what counts as a good result even if they get it.

The perfectionist mindset doesn't even recognize what they actually want, they just are highly aware of what they don't want, because what they don't want are markers of incorrectness or mistakes that is psychologically upsetting and reflective of whatever anxiety that's inadvertently being coped with.

I think perfectionism is very easy to develop growing up as a trauma response. Everyone recognizes a chaotic upbringing can make someone fall apart and reject any cohesive structure, and antisocial behaviors mark a symptom of a rough living environment -- but not many recognize it can actually make someone extremely hyper competent, and that in of itself is a symptom.

Basically, a child who seems extremely on the ball with getting perfect grades or scores, with over-managing things to the details and still being extremely nervous that it's garbage, and being hyper competent at things too advanced for their age -- all that is symptoms o trauma, because it's a response to trying to negate what's emotionally dangerous and controlling threats. Normally it's in response to parents either being overly harsh of any visible sign of under-performance, or an incentive structure where the child is only validated with attention if they over-achieve.

You may notice perfectionists kind of 'test' their results where if no one has anything critical to say (that they didn't already account for) then they have a sigh of relief. Not pride or happiness, just relief, because it means they passed the danger test. You'll also notice that if you point something that either they didn't notice themselves (or worse, they did but couldn't figure out how to work out the flaw) then they'll get extremely emotionally unregulated and fall apart in what looks like an anxiety attack. A flaw in their process instantly because a flaw in who they are as a person and everything they're about, and they fall into a panic of existential catastrophizing.

For myself, I absolutely fit this picture. I definitely am a compulsive perfectionist, though not really as bad as I used to be. My upbringing was extremely chaotic and unstable, and I grew up in a high-achieving family. Over-performing was rewarded and any kind of mistake or oversight was pointed out derisively.

It's why trying to assure a perfectionist something is good enough, it's fine, and that they don't have to achieve the highest form of standard -- it doesn't work. At all. That assumes they actually want that standard. They don't. A perfectionist wants to feel safe and in control, and so long as flaws exist, their emotional stability is threatened and left precarious, because it's leaving modes of vulnerability to potentially be used against them.

Though it's easy to develop, I also think it's not that difficult to train yourself out of it either. In my experience, it's not really about trying to teach yourself that flaws are to be accepted (if it was that easy, then it wouldn't be an issue in the first place), it's about training yourself to reward yourself with the results you do have, to understand what standards you actually want for yourself and going for. When you do that, you teach yourself to celebrate and feel satisfied by accomplishment, rather then rake yourself raw over something you don't even really know you want.

Basically, learning to recognize what you actually want for yourself, clearly define what those standards are, and feel extremely happy and celebrate yourself when you manage them. Much in the same way you solve a puzzle in a video game. No one beats themselves up for getting a 'game over', they just get more focused in trying to do whatever is needed to achieve the thing and get to the next part of the game.

Oh! Yes, I remember now, thank you.

My advice was along the lines of if you're practicing/studying at art but nothing is changing, that means the way you're drawing isn't changing, you're simply repeating the process and passively waiting for the improvement to happen.

Artistic improvement has to be an active, engaged process where you're constantly evaluated, analyzing, and experimenting with your results. Improvement isn't a passive level up like an RPG grind, it takes cultivating an attentive relationship with your own process. Working hard doesn't mean you're growing, it just means you work hard.

My philosophy on this hasn't changed at all. I think I edited out of my About page because I felt the wording was clunky and I wanted the general advice to be more streamlined.