#though you could also argue that i could just post the redraw on its own and compare it to the panel i drew a year ago | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

cloudysarts · 10 months

Note

All right I take the bait. Why do you believe Manel should have accompanied Pacifica at the party

AHHH THANK YOU IM SO EXCITED TO EXPLAIN MYSELF (in reference to this post)

ok. northwest mansion mystery is a great episode obviously. but HERES why i think the episode would've been even better if mabel was in dippers spot!!!!!! its kinda a lot so i put it under a read more

so this episode is sort of the middle-ish of season 2 i think, right before the ford reveal!! its not a super long show anyway so theres not a ton of pacifica appearances, anyway. BUT in EVERY SINGLE OTHER PACIFICA EPISODE, her energy has been bouncing off of mabel!!! from their meeting in double dipper, to irrational treasure, to golf war; they have been established as the main dynamic here. golf war is especially important here, because this is the very first step in pacfica's redemption arc! mabel saves her in this episode, the pines give her a ride home, and it seems like pacifica is going to start being a little more understanding of mabel because she had misjudged her, hence why she was treating her so poorly. it looks like theyre gonna establish a friendship between them!

and then. they dont. they basically never interact again. because the next time we see pacifica, she goes straight to dipper in northwest manor mystery. the cold open implies that the northwests wanted dipper specifically because of his knowlege of how to deal with the supernatural but IN MY OPINION that DOESNT EVEN MAKE SENSE because we NEVER see dipper fighting these monsters on his own? hes ALWAYS with mabel. at the very least, i think it shouldve been BOTH of them??? we see a brief shot of a newspaper clipping where dipper is fighting a vampire bat or something and i just. when did this happen. where is mabel

that would be a fine argument for it being both of them instead of just mabel so heres one of my bigger points thats gonna come back a lot in this breakdown: dipper. does not like pacifica. he STRAIGHT UP HATES HER. every single interaction theyve had has been negative!!! its even massively negative at the beginning of this ep!!!! though mabel often dislikes pacifica, she TRIES REALLY HARD TO LIKE HER. mabel has a lot of love in her heart, and if she could, shed want to be her friend!!! its always been pacifica whos been rejecting those advances!!! golf war was the start of pacifica understanding that about mabel, and it nmm wouldve been the PERFECT time to wrap up that arc, rather than leaving it!!!

and i would argue that could STILL LEAD INTO A DIPCIFICA ARC, if thats what the showrunners/fans wanted? most of why dipper hates pacifica to begin with is because shes so terrible to mabel. he only agrees to go to the party in canon because MABEL wants to!!! imo, i think the lead in to them being a couple would be a million times better if that massive problem in their relationship was solved first

i dont PERSONALLY like dipcifica but im trying to stay unbiased about this if you cant tell

i would also argue that like. dipper just seems really out of character. the reason i picked some of the scenes i did for my redraws, was because they were scenes that i think his behavior would fit mabel a lot better. examples:

why do the northwests have a suit in dippers size anyway. he literally doesnt even like wearing it sjkfhkj in a potential re-write of this ep, i considered that mabel would come in wearing her super extravagent home made dress, and it would 'violate dress code', so she would be forced to wear one of pacificas we could still have that cute dress-up expo scene that we do AND have some fun commentary/symbolism about pacifica being nervous about having her in the dress because its NICE and TOO GOOD FOR HER and she looked FINE BEFORE ANYWAY

mabels empathy is a recurring theme in the show. shed WANT to give pacifica the benefit of the doubt, and would be VERY betrayed when finding out her and her family already knew about the ghosts and knew what he wanted. i understand that dipper was so upset because it seemed like pacifica was changing for the better just to find out that she wasnt, but i think this fits so much better with mabel, because shes always WANTED to believe that shes secretly a good person. she would be glad to see her turn a corner, and would be upset when finding out she was 'wrong', and that she really was mean deep down. whcih would obviously lead to her comforting her later/finding out the truth about her etc etc. on the other hand, dipper literally never believed she had good in her. from the first interaction we see of them, he thinks shes as terrible as her family. he ISNT as interested in giving her the benefit of the doubt and if it wasnt a life or death situation i dont think he wouldve forgiven her. IDK i just think its more in character for her

the dancing scene!!! honestly this works fine as is (i can see both dipper and mabel being excited to make a mess on a fancy carptet) but idk i just think it carries so much more weight if its these two girls. silly moments for mabel!!!! pacifica getting to really be a kid and not just a sparkly prop!!!!!!! pacifica finally indulging in her sillyness that she mocked in irrational treasure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ok moving on. one of the bigger things that bother me about it being dipper here instead of mabel is one teeny tiny (honestly really irrational) scene at the party. in it, dipper is confronted by fiddleford, who tells him he has big news about the author/the laptop and the towns in danger and its vitally important and dipper just. shrugs him off???!!?!?!?! i cannot even IMAGINE. in alex hirschs words "the first season is about dipper being in love with wendy, and the second is about him being in love with the author" meaning that. those are the TWO things that dipper is completely and totally obsessed with. hes clearly not over wendy (as we see in later episodes) and this is not long after sock opera/society of the blind eye so youd THINK hed be more depserate for answers than ever!??!?! this child was willing to sell out his great uncle and raise the dead and stay up for several nights in a row for answers, and the second he is offered some (from a man who WORKED WITH THE AUTHOR btw) hes like like 'whatevr'?!?!?! it is so out of character and it drives me fucking nuts every time. i know hes starting to like pacifica now but as we see in the comics (if you chose to think those are canon) HE DOESNT EVEN SEEM TO LIKE HER THAT MUCH!??!?! hes STILL convinced shes vain, and mean, and selfish!!!! he DOES start to have a little arc with her but jksdfjksf IDK i just cant in a million years see him passing up the chance for answers to the biggest mystery in gravity falls to hang out with a girl he tolerates

but yknow who i CAN see doing that? MABEL!!!!!!!! mabel would be concerned when mcgucket comes up to her, and starts talking like this!!!! i can totally see her suggesting that he relax for a little while and enjoy the party like dipper did, and then forgetting to come back to talk/not running into him later!!!! ESPECIALLY since i can see mabel WANTING to spend time with pacifica where dipper just. really doesnt seem to want to MOST of the time

ok ill admit that this last one is sort of a personal opinion. but i just. i really dont like the B plot of this episode with mabel and the girls. IDK its just so annoying and pointless to me to have a plot where its just a bunch of girls turning against each other over a guy. im not gonna say its mysoginistic bc i know little girls can be boy crazy but i just. dont see why there was a need to make them fight/turn against grenda briefly??? even when they rekindled and it was all ok in the end its just. in comparison to the A plot its so. Nothing.

in my head i have a rewrite of this episode and how it goes is that pacifica approaches dipper and asks for help and he turns it down (like he does in canon). mabel suggests that they do it anyway, but he refuses, as he wants nothing to do with her. when dippers gone, mabel agrees to help (and pacifica begrudgingly accepts bc it seems like the only option) and so she steals the journal when dippers not looking. she goes to the party, and events go pretty much the same?? only major difference i can think of is that the B plot is replaced by one where dipper realizes mabel and the journal are missing, so he sneaks into the manor/sneaks around the house trying to find he rand get it back (and its so massive he has no luck). the reason i think THAT works is because we can even still have the scene where dipper turns to wood like shifty prophesied!!!! and i would even argue it makes more sense this way because wasnt shiftys warning that "if you keep digging so deep into the secrets of gravity falls, this will be the last form youll ever take" ?

OK IM SORRY THIS WAS SO LONG im probably forgetting points too so i might edit it later but THANKS FOR ASKING

tldr: pacifica and mabels friendship plotline was left on a total cliffhanger after golf war and if mabel replaced dipper in nmm it would've been a good resolution to it

edit: check the reblogs if youre still interested! i added another list of reasons i think this (mostly in response to people disagreeing)

#Gravity Falls #gravity falls analysis #gravity falls essay #mabel pines #pacifica northwest #northwest mansion mystery #northwest manor mystery #gravity falls nmm #nmm #mabcifica #mabifica #i wanna add that. it is fine if you like dipifica SJHKDFJHKDLS I KNOW ITS CANON i personally Do Not Get It but to each their own #but also while saying that i want to add that . im not trying to argue that mabcifica should be canon #in fact i do not think it should be #when i say i think mabel should be in this episode i am specefically saying that it doesnt NEED romantic undertones to be good #they can jut be buddies

140 notes · View notes

sketchesofsam · 6 years

Text

The Illustration Master Class - A First Timer's Journal

This is a long blog post. It's mostly for my own purposes, but also for those who want an in-depth look at what being at the IMC is like. I have some pointers for first timers, things you might not think of and things to consider in advance. They'll be at the end of the article. I want to thank Dave Palumbo for allowing me to use a couple of his amazing photos too, he's a talented SOB.

probably won't forget the moment my Facebook messages suddenly started pinging off. 'Congrats Sam!' 'Hey Sam, you won!' I distinctly remember thinking, hmm, what did I win? Did I enter another twitter giveaway or something? Then someone followed up with 'you won the scholarship!' It took me a moment. Then the chat I was in the middle of with my other half suddenly filled with lots of expletives and capitals on my end. Holy shit. I'd won the Muddy Colors scholarship to the IMC, something that had been a long-term wish of mine since I'd found out about it 5 or 6 years prior but hadn't ever had the funds to attend. So to find out that my entry to their scholarship program - through the generous donations of the Muddy Colors Patreon - submitted on a 'what have I got to lose' mentality that was still shadowed by the fuzzy sting of not getting into Spectrum, had scored me the full cost of the course. I'd honestly forgotten I'd applied. Let that be a lesson to those of you who hold back on submitting to things, especially the things that are free. It's always worth a punt.

So what's it like to go to the IMC? I can tell you that winning the scholarship made the pre-IMC thumbnail assignment a lot more stressful than if I'd paid for it. The weight of imagining disappointing the people who had seen my work and voted for it - artistic heroes of mine - was pretty heavy. It made me feel like I couldn't just go and do the same thing I'd always done, even if it had won me the scholarship. Before I started drawing, I reconsidered my influences. I'd started a secret pinterest board a few months back simply called 'Ho Fuck That's Good.' Stuff that gave me a gut punch when I looked at it. I spent a lot of time looking at those images and a lot of the others I had pinned. I stopped paying attention to work that I simply found technically impressive, that had awesome composition or great values. I looked for what moved me. Why it moved me. I started making notes about themes I found compelling or that cropped up a lot in my own work. I decided I wasn't going to do just a straight up realistic narrative Whaler Girl piece, I was going to try and make my own work be more like that which moved me. A risky, and perhaps somewhat dumb move, given those same realistic, narrative images had won me the scholarship.

We were asked to provide 4 or 5 thumbnails, either of our own choosing, or from an assignment provided, such as an illustration to accompany a short story, the likes of which are often published on Tor.com. With themes like duality, death, grief and love in relationships crowding my brain, I created a lot of thumbnails. I wasn't going to take the first 3 or 4 that came out. I did about 20 in total and narrowed it down to the 6 I felt most attached to. Some of them even had hints back to The Whaler Girl in a very asbtract way. They'd come out better than I'd hoped for and I could see a tiny glimpse of the sort of painting I might get out of it. It made me excited to put them in front of my chosen faculty member.

We were asked to pick a top 5 from the vertiable smorgasbord of faculty. That was hard. It turned out that most people got grouped with their top pick and that dictated who the other faculty were that would give you feedback. I suspect my pick would have surprised a few people. Kent Williams was actually the instructor I was least familiar with, but researching his work, especially his most recent work, it hit the same kind of buttons that my inspiration board had. His work felt emotionally personal and while I knew I didn't want to necessarily paint like he did, I felt he might be able to give good feedback on how to tap into that sense of the personal. Perhaps someone who could help keep me on track with the first wibbly steps I was taking with my own work. I count myself lucky to have landed in the group with Rebecca, Kent and Tara (McPherson).

I wanted to make a good first impression, but there were so many approaches to the dreaded 'crit day'. Some folks brought only one or two finished colour thumbs, some folks just had small, traditionally drawn thumbnails, occasionally done on arrival the night before. Some brought photo mockups of the exact piece they wanted to work on. All approaches got good feedback. I'd been forewarned that crit day could be rough, but I think the Studio 201 guys were pretty chill. I did peek my head in on the other two rooms briefly. Donato, Greg Ruth and Scott Fischer were all highly animated and I've been told often argued with each other's feedback. Dan Dos Santos, Irene Gallo and Greg Manchess were part of the group that, from chatting to folks, seemed to get the most direct feedback.

I was a little surprised when there was no tracing paper used during my crit. All three faculty members responded favourably to what had been my favourite thumbnail, despite its weirdness. No direct suggestions other than resolving the shapes in my minimal, non-figurative space (that minor bit of feedback would come to haunt me by The Thursday of DOOM, but I'll get to that later). Inspirations like Inka Essenhigh, Hope Gangloff and Dorothea Tanning were thrown my way, I loved all three for very different reasons. It was safe to say inspiration was running high and I had a tonne of positive energy to run with.

I felt like I was well prepped going into the IMC, but I wasn't. Choosing to go full traditional when having to fly internationally was a pain. I didn't have a lot of the stuff I needed and had to rely on the infinite kindness of my fellow students and faculty to see me through. Stephen, Annie, Chris, Julia, you were all lovely, I can't thank you enough.

My Tuesday started with James Gurney sat at my breakfast table. That was surreal but awesome. He and his wife Jeanette are as lovely two people as you could hope to meet, full of insight and always taking notes. The previous day's lecture on photo reference was flowing through my mind and I dreaded having to ask fellow students. My figures were both nudes and that wasn't something I was comfortable with, though I thought perhaps I could take individual legs and arms and use a little online ref to fill in the rest. I wish I'd drummed up the courage to ask my fellow students, but that particular social step eluded me the whole week. I spent the day instead with many sheets of tracing paper, figuring out What marks were what. I had discussions with Greg Ruth and Donato Giancola about how to find those shapes and make them fit in my piece. You have to figure out who to listen to, and whose advice to stash for a later date. You get bombarded with advice if you go in as open-minded as I did. I'd thrown myself into a pool I should have been paddling in first, pretty much at the very public deep end. I'll admit I found ways to put off getting to painting, as it was only the 2nd oil painting I'd done in the last 20 years and the company I had in the room was stellar and a little overwhelming. Eventually, I chose to redraw via a grid so I could edit as I went along and I used some reference I shot of my own limbs to help flesh the drawing out. I left Tuesday feeling reasonably positive about the work.

Wednesday was a full day with faculty feedback, up to the first 5 pm lecture. Dan Dos Santos, who is perfectly lovely, but also very honest with feedback, stopped by my easel. Overall, very complimentary, he pulled me on a bit of weird anatomy, that after using a lot more photo ref with the rest of the piece, had begun to stand out. He suggested I grab Rebecca after our discussion. I'd responded best to her feedback, as she seemed to understand what I was trying to do, so I grabbed her after lunch. She immediately told me the leg and anatomy I'd had in the thumbnail had been working, and that if I liked the weirdness (which I did) to go weird with the rest of the piece to make the leg fit. Literally the opposite of Dan's feedback. Feedback is such a personal thing, every instructor has their own view of art and own journey. I'd probably tried to take a little bit of everyone who'd stopped by and given feedback and every little bit had nudged me slightly off the course I'd intended to take. Dan's feedback was spot on, if I'd been after something with a solid grounding in realism, but I wasn't. I was after an emotional feeling rather than muscles that looked like they fit where they were supposed to go. Rebecca suggested I just print the thumbnail out, mount it to masonite and paint on that. But resolve my shapes first.

That led me to ask Tara for advice and after some back and forth, I thought I knew where I was going, and decided rather than be tied to the values I'd got in the thumbnail to start with, I'd trace down the printed thumbnail and resolve my shapes. All went well, I got the drawing on the board, and aware of the ever-ticking clock and my ability to get feedback on my painting process, I was keen to get started the following day.

I nick-named Thursday 'Thursday of DOOOOOOOM' in my sketchbook notes. With that many 'O's'. It started well, with my sketch on my illustration board, I figured I'd use acrylic underpainting to speed up the process, then seal with matte medium and start on top in oils. I'd brought a lovely lime green and violet with me, my underpainting was done in warm purple-reds as a counterpoint, and I was winging it. It felt good. I stepped away for a bit before lunch and came back after to the horror of a C-shaped warped board. A brand I'd not used before, I hadn't been heavy with it at all. I threw some matte medium on the back in the hopes it would pull itself out of the curve, but it only stiffened. I think panic set in at this point, I knew there was no point in doing more on the board, but I'd been stubborn over mounting the printouts I'd done. Old dog, new tricks and all that.

Distraught, I knew I had no choice. I slunk off to the back of the studio and tried not to blub my eyes out as I tried a totally new method of mounting with less than perfect tools. Flustered, my hair constantly got stuck in the medium, making me even more panicked that the whole thing would be a disaster and that I'd missed the last supply run and would have to face the very public shame of asking someone for actual help. If there's one thing I hate, it's not being self-sufficient. My fellow students would have happily helped out, but shame is a pretty powerful emotion, it tends to rule what you do. I prayed the mounted paper wouldn't need a 2nd sheet mounting on the back to counter the drawing mounted on the front. At best, in the blazing sun, this stuff would take a couple of hours to dry to the point I could paint on it. The wind did its best to prevent me from stacking the board outside and in my hours of deepest bleakness, I figured that maybe if it blew over into the dirt and insects, I'd say fuck it and make them part of the fucking thing too. It was also at this point I realised the printouts had cropped the two thumbnails I'd chosen to work with, altering their composition drastically. My own dumb fault for not setting the page size up properly in the printer. One more shame I'd suck up and live with. I wish I'd asked for help. I think knowing the pieces weren't what I'd initially intended broke my ability to give them my full attention and killed my mojo for the next couple of days. My anxiety rats, as Rebecca delightfully referred to them, were in full swing.

While I waited for it to dry, I headed back into the studio and mentioned to Rebecca I'd given in with the curved board and mounted the thumbnail and would she have a look over what I'd chosen to do with the background. Rebecca is gracious and lovely and patiently listens to me explain what I've done. Then she points to some of the graphic elements I'd put in and gently says that they still feel too literal and forced, that the motifs I choose should be something I relate to closely and that it doesn't quite live up to the right hand, figurative side of the painting. I suggest a couple of other ideas, feeling a scrabbling panic bulding in me, only to hear her tell me everything still feels too literal. My logic brain knows she's right, but after a distraught morning, I'm clasping at any straw I have to salvage the situation. I don't know if it showed, and she saw that I was struggling with it or if it was just honest feedback for the moment, but at that point, she looked at me and said 'maybe this piece is a step too far for you right now, maybe you should do the other piece, if that's something that's more comfortable for you.' I think I agreed with her, nodded and extolled the virtues of taking a step back into my comfort zone, getting a painting I knew how to do done was a good thing, yes? But damn if that wasn't a kick to the gut at that very moment.

She was absolutely right, though. I'd throw myself into a deep pool, with people who were olympic athletes at diving its depths, and in the course of a week expected to be able to at least dive a good distance with them. I'd been able to get my head underwater with my well-planned thumbnails, but in this overwhelming, information packed, inspiring, public test of artistic mettle, I'd punched above my depth, so to speak. Trying to shift gears artistically when you have your own space and the time to find your journey is one thing, I don't know if it can be done in a week, no matter how much amazing input you get from your artistic heroes. Chris, Erin, Annie, I'm sorry if my energy those next 48 hours was a bummer, it wasn't a place I was familiar with being.

Kent Williams came to the rescue of my very bruised ego that evening with a talk about his personal journey through art. Indirectly, seeing the bredth and depth of his work over such a long time span, I confess to feeling a little idiotic that I'd expected to be able to make that leap in a week. Every faculty member who gave a talk like that had shown me that their journeys were long, and often fraught with failed ventures or periods of doing artistic things they didn't want to. I left the lecture with my tail between my legs, but a renewed sense that I would do my best with the hand I'd given myself. I did a couple of colour studies that evening, traditionally, inspired by seeing James Gurney's master studies in his lecture. I loved doing them, and wish I'd had more time to do more. But I found a piece online that had a palette I liked and did a couple of explorations of a similar theme. I finally, finally, 4 days into the escapade, managed to put down some oil paint.

Friday and Saturday I painted as much as I could, but tentatively, I was making marks I'd never made before. I listened to the feedback being given around me and let anyone who wanted to stop and give me feedback, do so. I'm not sure I actively asked for it. I struggled as the ladies around me with their amazinly characterful pieces drew the attention of everyone who went past. I wondered if I was so far off the mark and weird that no one knew what to say about my piece. Maybe it was so bland that they couldn't praise or crit it. In retrospect, I recognise that my mood and lack of decent sleep was tinting my mood heavily, and I suspect I was giving off the same vibe, which is enough to make folks give you a bit of a wide berth.

The theme of finding your niche and doing what you love came up in more than one lecture over those days. I went to bed at 2 am both nights, in an attempt to get as much done as I could. I socialised a little more, realising that was as much a part of the experience as the painting. If not more. I'm hugely thankful for the bonds I forged during that week, something I couldn't have done at home, no matter how much I painted. Those bonds were worth much more to me than the painting I half finished. I think I came to accept that what I wanted to do was going to be a journey that needed a little longer than a week to take. I wish there had been more 'round table' lectures with all the faculty, seeing them interact together on the business lecture was amazing.

Sunday was chill. I'd had the intention of painting more, but clearing up took a while, and I felt good being relaxed. So I socialised more instead. Our final lecture with Donato was the perfect note to end the experience on and the open house was a chance to take in everyone's work, the standard of which was amazing. After a super tasty mexican dinner and strawberry margherita, the bar beckoned. After drawing I don't know how much hentai in people's sketchbooks and getting a badass Bill Nighy sketch from the awesome Bud Cook in my own sketchbook, alongside the weirdest pseudonyms and animal drawings ever, I crashed and burned as being under the influence after a week of mental stress and lack of sleep took its toll on me. Conan, thank you for making sure I got back safely that night, I really appreciate it, I suspect I'd have passed out in a dark corner of the bar otherwise. Sad I missed out on the late night partying that ensued, but damn, did I need that night's sleep.

So there's one woman's view of what it's like to go to the IMC, to throw yourself at the mercy of the faculty and your own desires. To fail and not deal with it well, to realise that the painting was never the important thing. IMC was amazing. I can only hope this gives those of you who haven't been a teensy insight. I'm not going to cover what the lectures were or what faculty shared with us, that's a very specific IMC experience, that you really have to go to appreciate. I will say I am hugely thankful to Dan, Rebecca and all of those on Muddy Colors who made that experience real for me. It has enriched me in ways I suspect I'll only realise as my journey continues. Thank you to everyone who gave me kind words and praise and to those who tried to guide me on my way. If ever the opportunity arises for you to attend, I would say grab it with both hands and run with it. Even if your experience doesn't run as profound as mine, and it simply lets you have some time to paint whatever the hell you want, being in a huge room full of people going through the same thing is well worth the price, not to mention watching faculty paint in real time is invaluable.

So, what if you've taken that leap, some months from now and you're going to the IMC? Here's a few pointers from someone who thought they were prepared and was woefully not.

1 - THE DORMS Are basic AF. I was somewhat prepared, but when the FAQ says the beds are firm, they mean it. Think springs wrapped in a bit of plastic tarp. The sheets are functional, but the blanket looked like someone had put used dog bedding through a shredder and mushed it out into a rectangle. I bought a spare blanket at the CVS store, cause no way was that thing touching my skin. I may be a little sensitive though. I affectionately referred to the whole set up as my prison bed, cause honestly, that's all I could think of. If you can bring your own bedding, I'd recommend it.

The dorm bathrooms are gender neutral, which means anyone can use them. I was fine with it, but it's odd the first time you wander into the bathroom and find the opposite sex brushing their teeth. I never had any problems taking a shower, though, they were pretty quiet.

Morris Pratt Dorm was definitely the more social, I was very thankful to be on the 3rd floor, as a light sleeper, the partying into the wee hours would have kept me awake had I been on the lower floors. The box fans helped with white noise, but the doors are all pretty heavy, so unless folks are very delicate with how they close them, expect some noise. I found the box fan enough without the AC, even when it got pretty warm on the last couple of days.

2 - FOOD. Having never been to a large educational establishment in the US, I wasn't sure what to expect with the food. Would I have to venture into Amherst to find healthy stuff, would there be much choice? The food was surprisingly decent. It's still a large facility, so it's never going to be amazing restaurant quality, but there were a few choices every day and a well-stocked salad bar. They even had a soft serve ice cream machine, that I managed to avoid until Sunday. I'm not a coffee drinker, but I had it on good authority that the coffee in the dining hall wasn't great. It might be an idea to bring a drinks container with you, as mealtimes are the only time you can get drinks on campus, outside of water fountains. Amherst is only a 10-minute walk down the road, though.

3 - ART SUPPLIES AND STUDIO SAFETY. I brought paints, brushes and surfaces with me, with the knowledge I'd ordered a couple extra things for while I was there and that there was a supply run. If you work on specific surfaces, it's best to bring those with, Michael's wasn't super well stocked, and more speciality things like large clayboard weren't available. A lot of people bring extras and are happy to share, thankfully. I would have brought more old rags or kitchen towels and some tape. People often used walls to tape up thumbnails or other pieces of art.

The university runs a very strict number of safety policies surrounding paints, water and mediums. Bring some lidded jars with you for mediums and water. Everything has to be labelled clearly and remained closed when not in use. Even water used for rinsing acrylic and watercolours. All have to be disposed of carefully too. Same with anything you wipe paint or mediums on, so using something a bit more disposable like kitchen towel might do you better. They ask you to cover your oil paints when not in use, though that can be with a simple piece of palette paper.

If you choose an easel, if you have space for a little extra table, you'll likely make good use of it. The chairs they supply are also very basic and not comfortable for long periods, so bringing a cushion is definitely a good idea. Oh, and they say the studio opens at 8 am on Monday but I got there at 8 am and a lot of the spaces had already been taken, so if you want prime real estate, get there early!

4 - SELF PROMOTION This sounds like a no-brainer. I brought business cards for the faculty and my portfolio review with Irene Gallo. I thought I'd sorted my work out reasonably well, but actually, my website would have been a better place to show off my work. I also wish I'd brought a physical portfolio to leave out for students and faculty to flick through, perhaps an example of finished work that was either nicely printed if I was doing digital, or one of my traditional pieces. The latter is tricky when flying. My business cards were on the pricey side so I wish I'd had some decent postcards or stickers, printed for the open studio, where folks were picking stuff up. You never know who's going to pick one up! The internet can be spotty in the building, so unless you have some 4G going on, it can be tricky to show off folios digitally.

You might also be lucky enough to score a second portfolio review if the guests have enough time, I am so glad I could put my work in front of WotC's Jeremy Jarvis. It cheered my Saturday up no end! Make sure you check the lists when they go up and bag your second spot early. And don't puss out.

5 - DON'T BE AFRAID TO ASK FOR HELP I'm stubborn and British, so asking for help is the worst, but everyone there will gladly help you out if they can. Especially the assistant team, Daneen, Julia and Stephen and the 'honored easels' who've been in your situation. Take advantage of them, they are all lovely people.

And that sums it up! An amazing, tiring, exhausting, mentally demanding, inspiring, overwhelming experience that I wouldn't change for the world. I hope to repeat it in the next year or two. I count myself lucky to be part of the alumni and perhaps if you're reading this, I might see you there too.

22 notes · View notes

patriotsnet · 3 years

Text

Which Republicans Voted For The Impeachment

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/which-republicans-voted-for-the-impeachment/

Which Republicans Voted For The Impeachment

Ial Retraction From Starr

Several House Republicans to vote to impeach President Trump

In January 2020, while testifying as a defense lawyer for U.S. President Donald Trump during his first Senate impeachment trial, Starr himself would retract some of the allegations he made to justify Clintonâs impeachment. Slate journalist Jeremy Stahl pointed out that as he was urging the Senate not to remove Trump as president, Starr contradicted various arguments he used in 1998 to justify Clintonâs impeachment. In defending Trump, Starr also claimed he was wrong to have called for impeachment against Clinton for abuse of executive privilege and efforts to obstruct Congress, and stated that the House Judiciary Committee was right in 1998 to have rejected one of the planks for impeachment he had advocated for. He also invoked a 1999 Hofstra Law Review article by Yale law professor Akhil Amar, who argued that the Clinton impeachment proved just how impeachment and removal causes âgrave disruptionâ to a national election.

Rep John Katko New York

To impeach a sitting president is a decision I do not take lightly, Rep. John Katko of New Yorks 24th Congressional District said in a statement Tuesday.

As a former federal prosecutor, I approach the question of impeachment by reviewing the facts at hand, he said. To allow the President of the United States to incite this attack without consequence is a direct threat to the future of our democracy. For that reason, I cannot sit by without taking action. I will vote to impeach this President.

Dont Miss: Trump Democrat Or Republican

One Voted Last Week Against Certifying Electoral College Results

Ten Republicans voted Wednesday to impeach President Donald Trump, exactly one week after a violent attack on the Capitol by the presidents supporters.;

The Democrat-led House voted 232-197 to approve one article of impeachment against Trump, charging the president with incitement of insurrection.;

The GOP lawmakers who voted to impeach the president from their own party included Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, the third-highest-ranking Republican in the House. Cheneys vote has prompted House Republicans to call on her to step down as conference chairwoman.

While many in the group have a history of breaking with their party, the yes votes included several with a strong record of supporting Trump and one, South Carolina Rep. Tom Rice, who voted last week against certifying President-elect Joe Bidens Electoral College victory in two states.;

Most Republicans in the House opposed impeachment, with many arguing the hurried process would further divide the country. But for these 10 Republicans who supported impeachment, the fact that Trump incited the riot at the Capitol was indisputable.;

Four Republicans did not vote on impeachment, including Texas Rep. Kay Granger, who recently tested positive for COVID-19. The others were Reps. Andy Harris of Maryland, Greg Murphy of North Carolina and Daniel Webster of Florida.

Here are the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump:;

Also Check: Did Trump Say Republicans Are Stupid

Some Senators Didnt Have An Answer For What They Would Need To See In Order To Vote For The Measure

Republican senators on Friday drowned the hopes of an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol, gathering enough members of their own conference to block legislation to establish the panel.

Though it received overall majority support in the chamber, the procedural vote, a cloture vote on a motion to proceed, to the legislation fell short of the 60 votes needed, 54-35. Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Rob Portman of Ohio were the only Republicans who voted to end debate on whether to take up the legislation.

The vote, which had been expected on Thursday, was delayed after some Republican senators, including Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, consumed floor time that brought the chamber to a painfully slow cadence and culminated at around 3 a.m. Friday morning.

Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., said he struck an agreement that ensured the commission vote would happen in the light of day and not in the early morning hours.

On Thursday, the family and colleagues of a Capitol Police officer who died shortly after defending the Capitol on Jan. 6 met with several GOP senators to try to convince them to vote for the commission.

Gladys Sicknick met with Johnson Thursday morning and said GOP opposition to the commission is a slap in the face to officers because they put their lives on the line.

Staying Above The Fray

As autumn approaches, the pressure on Bice from within her party appears to be lifting. Oklahoma GOP leaders have said nothing about her since party Chairman John Bennett posted a rebuke on Facebook in May following her Jan. 6 commission vote. Bennetts post is now blocked from public view, and he did not respond to a request for an interview.

Bice, who voted in January to oppose certification of the presidential result in Arizona, has repeatedly given the same explanation for her stance;on both the 2020 presidential election and the Capitol riot, positions she reiterated in an interview with CQ Roll Call.;

She said she wanted to make a statement about the integrity of state lawmakers control over how elections are administered, noting a 2020 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed voters to cast absentee ballots without getting them notarized.

Voting rights advocates said the measure would protect voters during the coronavirus pandemic, but state Republican lawmakers called the decision judicial overreach and rushed a party-line bill through the Legislature restoring the requirement.;

Oklahoma could have become a statistic like other states that had their election laws changed by judicial or executive decree, Bice said. For me, that was something that was very troubling.

Video: Texas GOP working to redraw maps to favor Republicans as Senate Democrats introduce voter protections bill

Read Also: How Many States Are Controlled By Republicans

Rep Anthony Gonzales Republican Who Voted For Impeachment Will Not Seek Re

After being one of 10 House Representatives to vote to impeach former President Donald Trump, Ohio Representative Anthony Gonzalez has chosen to not run for re-election in 2022.

On Thursday, the former NFL wide receiver took to to issue a lengthy statement regarding his decision.

The Republican politician started the press statement by mentioning how his goal within politics was to do his job as long as the voters would allow and work to maintain his family.

“Since entering politics, I have always said that I will do this job as long as the voters will have me and it still works for my family,” said Gonzalez.

Gonzalez then went on to talk about the reasoning behind why he’s chosen to not seek out re-election in 2022.

“Given the political realities of the day, I know this news will come as a disappointment to those who have been involved in our efforts,” said Gonzalez.

“You have given me and my family tremendous strength and courage in the face of much adversity these past few months and years. While my desire to build a fuller family life is at the heart of my decision, it is also true that the current state of our politics, especially many of the toxic dynamics inside our own party, is a significant factor in my decision,” Gonzalez mentioned.

Gonzalez went on to say that he’s hopeful “the chaotic political environment that currently infects our country will only be temporary.”

Michigan Rep Peter Meijer

The freshman Republican, who won a primary last summer in the 3rd District with the backing of House GOP leaders such as Kevin McCarthy, already is cutting an image for himself independent of his party after two weeks on the job. Its less surprising considering that former Rep. Justin Amash, the Republican-turned-independent-turned-Libertarian who split with Trump, held the seat before Meijer. Amash voted to impeach Trump in 2019.;

The scion of the Meijer family, which founded the grocery store chain of the same name, is a veteran of the Iraq War. Trump won the 3rd District, which includes Grand Rapids and Battle Creek, with 51 percent of the vote. Meijer, who turned his campaign operation into a grocery delivery service in the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, outperformed Trump in November, taking 53 percent of the vote.;

Recommended Reading: Did Trump Call Republicans Stupid In 1998

Why Didnt The Trial Begin While Trump Was Still In Office

The articles of impeachment were not sent to the Senate immediately since the Senate wouldnt be in session until the day before Joe Bidens inauguration. The Democrats waited further until an agreement was reached in the Senate for the power-sharing structure that would regulate how the evenly split Senate would operate going forward. Under an agreement with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell the trial was delayed to give the Senate more time to get Bidens nominees for his Cabinet approved.

Also Check: Gop Lapel Pin

Ohio Rep Anthony Gonzalez

President Trump faces Senate trial after historic House vote on impeachment

The two-term lawmaker said in a statement released as the vote was underway that he had concluded that the President of the United States helped organize and incite a mob that attacked the United States Congress in an attempt to prevent us from completing our solemn duties.;

Gonzalez represents the states 16th District, a mostly rural stretch that also includes the suburbs of Cleveland and Canton and which Trump carried by 14 points in 2020, according to Daily Kos Elections. During his tenure on Capitol Hill, Gonzalez has voted to support Trumps position on legislation nearly 90 percent of the time, but the former professional football player couldnt stick with Trump over the riot. When I consider the full scope of events leading up to January 6th including the Presidents lack of response as the United States Capitol was under attack, I am compelled to support impeachment, he added in his Wednesday statement.;

Read Also: House Democrats And Republicans

Impeachment By House Of Representatives

On December 11, 1998, the House Judiciary Committee agreed to send three articles of impeachment to the full House for consideration. The vote on two articles, grand juryperjury and obstruction of justice, was 2117, both along party lines. On the third, perjury in the Paula Jones case, the committee voted 2018, with Republican Lindsey Graham joining with Democrats, in order to give President Clinton “the legal benefit of the doubt”. The next day, December 12, the committee agreed to send a fourth and final article, for abuse of power, to the full House by a 2117 vote, again, along party lines.

Although proceedings were delayed due to the bombing of Iraq, on the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, on grounds of perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice . The two other articles were rejected, the count of perjury in the Jones case and abuse of power . Clinton thus became the second U.S. president to be impeached; the first, Andrew Johnson, was impeached in 1868. The only other previous U.S. president to be the subject of formal House impeachment proceedings was Richard Nixon in 197374. The Judiciary Committee agreed to a resolution containing three articles of impeachment in July 1974, but Nixon resigned from office soon thereafter, before the House took up the resolution.

Democrats Formally Vote To Open Impeachment Inquiry Against Trump

WASHINGTON After weeks of GOP criticism that the U.S. House of Representatives had not formally opened an impeachment inquiry, House Democrats approved a resolution Thursday formalizing the process, though Republicans griped that it was too late.

The House voted 232-196 in favour of the resolution, with all but two Democrats and no Republicans voting in favour of the process. Reps. Jeff Van Drew and Collin Peterson, both Democrats, voted with Republicans, while independent Justin Amash of Michigan voted with Democrats.

The resolution lays out ground rules for the impeachment process, including how much time Republican committee leaders will get to question witnesses, guidelines on how Republicans can call their own witnesses, the process for the White House to respond to congressional inquiries, and the overall impeachment process.

In an attempt to finally get the White House to co-operate with their investigations, the resolution would actually give U.S. President Donald Trump more rights if he and his staff co-operate with congressional subpoenas, but would take some of those rights away if the White House continues not to co-operate.

As Democrats finally called the vote Thursday, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sat in the president officers chair and announced the total. There was a spirited, partisan mood on the House floor.

What is at stake? What is at stake in all of this is nothing less than our democracy.

– U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi