Always try new things

Tonight on My Husband Doesn’t Know How to Baby Talk

Husband: ma’am it has been reported lately that you do in fact have tiny little toes and a little button nose, do you care to comment?

Penny Rose: Does that High Pitched Baby Yell ™️

Me: Hehehe silly husband doesn’t know how to do baby talk

Penny Rose: does a sad baby scream

Penny Rose: Cooing as twinkle twinkle little star plays

Husband: Holds Penny Rose up to her reflection in the microwave

I have follow up questions:

I didn't baby talk with her very much either! I think I squealed at her more than my husband did.

Everyone is always so so kind on this post but I do want to warn you all that this did in fact lead to an insanely verbal child, and if you choose that life you have to commit to that life.

1) My dad was also like this with me. Best example - reading a manual for a washing machine to me as an infant. Didn't turn into a Deals Warlock, but I did become a writer, so make of that what you will.

Me, to child: why are you Like That

Working on cutting out a large piece of wood to do the painting on, which is a constraint that will either be really fun or really annoying. Maybe both

this is actually horrific right? we can all agree about that?

Monster that feeds on suffering becomes a professional caretaker for people with chronic pain and terminal illnesses. They can't change the fact that these people are suffering, but they help a bit and in the meantime they're fat and happy off that Sweet Sweet ambient pain in the air.

Mammal in a Sunday Dress explores the uneasy relationship between femininity, civilisation, and the animal body. At first glance, the figure appears modest and withdrawn. Her posture is composed, her gaze seemingly lowered towards her bare feet, recalling the conventions of nineteenth-century portraiture where women were often depicted as passive objects of observation. Yet as the viewer moves closer, the illusion collapses. Her eyes are not lowered at all. She is looking directly back. The delayed eye contact transforms the encounter. The viewer approaches believing they are safely observing a woman; instead, they realise they have been observed themselves. The work refuses the traditional power dynamic of portraiture, denying the comfort of anonymous spectatorship. Looking becomes a reciprocal act. For Cox, the painting considers humanity's persistent desire to separate itself from the rest of the animal kingdom. The title quietly undermines this distinction. A "mammal" is not another creature—it is us. The Sunday dress, rich with cultural associations of femininity, morality, and respectability, becomes an attempt to distinguish ourselves from nature. Yet clothing cannot alter biology. Beneath lace and ritual remains the same vulnerable animal body. The work also reflects on the historical relationship between women and nature. Across art, religion, and philosophy, women have repeatedly been positioned as closer to instinct, emotion, reproduction, and the body itself, while men have been aligned with reason, culture, and civilisation. Mammal in a Sunday Dress does not reject this comparison. Instead, it questions why proximity to nature has so often been treated as something lesser. Chiaroscuro isolates the figure within darkness, allowing the luminous dress to symbolise the performance of civilisation while the bare feet quietly return the body to the earth. Neither is presented as more truthful than the other. The painting exists in the tension between performance and instinct, refinement and biology. Mammal in a Sunday Dress ultimately asks a simple but unsettling question: if every layer of culture were stripped away, what would remain? Not a king. Not a saint. Not a gentleman or a lady. Only another mammal, looking back.

ive only reeeeally seen this on reddit but in case it exists in other online spaces, i think the expectation that every artist should be recording themselves drawing so they can whip it out as evidence if they get accused of using gen ai is so fucking stupid, and not even reasonable either.

I have bad news: it's gotten worse on reddit. There's a sub dedicated to picking apart videos too. People are up in here calling out coloring methods and more. All things I've seen disabled artists do, specifically.

this is actually a good point. even artists can be misled into thinking they know all regarding this.

If you are not an artist, yes, obviously don't fling accusations. But if you have never worked with AI image/text generators, even cursorily, your accusations will be shit for that reason, too, because you are flat-out uninformed about its capabilities and limitations and its quirks. What it's hard to get it to do. What it's not capable of YET. What it's good enough at that it can pass as something completely done by a person. How much human effort goes into getting given results (potentially way more than you think) vs doing it totally without AI. If you don't understand how it works, and most people who oppose it proudly do not, don't assume you can always spot it, or that when you think you have, you are correct.