Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Carey

  1. Undoubtedly, this is a huge chunk to bite off. You're definitely on the right track, and I see you making a lot of smart decisions here. You probably need a team of like 5 guys to fill it out to the degree that you really want it. It's pretty hard to reach the kind of storytelling density that Patrick Clair is achieving in his pieces, which is partly why he's so notable. But it's good that you accidentally set the bar really high. You're on to something here.
  2. Cool, man! Love the consistency of design and animation of the iconography, the simple color palette, the slightly dizzy camerawork, and even the sound design details. You're doing well to guide the eye both with the camera's attention and by giving each element an appropriate level of importance. And it's definitely a big project, but a cool one to take on. Awesome job! Couple of things that might be helpful to consider: First, your strategy is to tell a straightforward story in the script, and then augment aspects of that story with visuals, like in the case of the radar explanation. And I think that's a pretty good general strategy in that it elevates both the literal and visual communication by their combination. But there are lots of instances where you're not really using your visual bandwidth to its potential. One strong example of this starts at 2:00, with a discussion of companies, satellite systems, transceivers, cell phone handshakes, pings, and information about the flight combed from these systems. But the sum total of the visual communication is to parrot random phrases from the script for at least 45 seconds, having a negligible benefit on your audience's understanding of what any of this means. There's a lot to understand in this 45 seconds, and the visuals aren't helping at all. Granted, it'd be a lot more work to provide visual accompaniment for each compartmentalized idea, but that's kind of the only way you're going to get the value out of the visual half of this. So, right off the bat, when the narrator says that "A company called Inmarsat operates a satellite communication system for ships and aircraft..." you've already got potentially a bunch of things in that 6 seconds that you can show the audience to augment their understanding of this story. You can show a physical location (the company), whatever kind of communications equipment they're using, the network of satellites they talk to, and a fleet of ships and aircraft all being pinged by that system. And depending on how you show these things, and what they're doing, you're affecting how the audience understands what's being talked about by explaining it visually, and hopefully in a way that's making it more informative and memorable. Like, what if you zoomed in toward London, but let the camera see below the world grid so that beneath the map is some representation of Inmarsat and their ground-based telecommunications array, which is sending out communications pulses. The camera tracks upward to the sky as it follows one pulse expanding to meet a network of satellites, which each get pinged, and as they send their return signals earthward, the camera itself has risen back into the sky and tracks downward to reveal a 777 with its transceiver pinging back info as requested. You can pull focus to the plane so that the map is blurred way out, and treat the plane and satellite as a diagram to start discussing handshakes, and so forth. Not only would that help us understand what's actually being talked about, but it would make the experience of watching it more engaging. You'll probably still want to use simple callouts, like the words Inmarsat and Satcom and maybe handshake, but you've eliminated any need for other callouts because they're being well described by the visual storytelling. You don't really need to parrot "Seven handshakes registered after the plane vanished" if that's what the narration is saying, and you're giving us a visual interpretation of what that means. Granted, this is lots more work, but it better accomplishes the goal you set out to achieve in the first place, which is to tell this story visually. Second, if you ARE going to resort to simply parotting the narration with text, like at 3:45, then how you organize and lay out and reveal that text is going to be all-important. And you've got a good start here, thinking about it like an outline, with your subject header being "but why". But that's not really the subject. And "But why" isn't informative as to the subject in any case. The subject is now about presenting theories on MH370's disappearance, so a more informative header might have been "primary theories", or "MH370 disappearance", with each plausible theory listed beneath, and counter-argumentative statements to the side, each graying out as they become sort of ruled out, as you've done, and which works pretty well. But again, each subheader needs to be correctly labelled or it ceases to be informative and engaging. So the list goes "Terrorism, Suicide, Where is the Wreckage", which doesn't make much sense. "Where is the Wreckage" isn't a theory, it's a question. What's the theory here? Is it that the plane was hijacked to Khazakhstan? Would "Hijacking" be a theory that wouldn't fall under terrorism? If so, then "Hijacking" is your subheader. If not, then this is either info that needed to come earlier and under the "terrorism" subheader, or this is a new topic that doesn't fall under this outline. These are issues either fixable easily in the writing, or in the layout, but they'll definitely provide clarity where it's much needed. But regardless, I think the point was to make a VISUAL storytelling piece, so you're best off informing us visually as often as possible. You've done a fantastic job with the iconography and animation in that respect. If you can expand that to really accompany the narration at every relevant moment, you'll be doing some next level shit.
  3. Harry. Come back. Do want. Stop playing with your kids or doing charity work or saving kittens or whatever you're doing. Rain down your glorious knowledge and cleanse the unwashed masses.
  4. Carey

    Long Overdue

    I have a cat avatar! If I may say so, your intro is really lovely. It's personalized, stylish, and well-made, and I'm immediately sold that you have solid design sensibilities, a filmic underpinning to your work, good taste and the chops to execute it. But then you inexplicably follow it with something that breaks that expectation with this kind of messy, heavily compressed, harshly-colored design mosh that's reminiscent of commercial work that was trendy quite a few years ago now. Maybe that's because it's actually older work, and older work is in no way unwelcome, but this work doesn't hold up to the expectation set up by your intro. You're telling us we're about to see something artful, and then you're hitting us with paint splat mattes from '05. There's a momentum of inspiration built by your intro, so maybe there's a way to keep that momentum going instead of blasting right into the NBA 2K splat matte fiesta. I feel like I got my feet massaged in an art gallery and then someone dropped a stack of jpegged hip hop flyers on my head. I also feel like your pacing is generally pretty good, and there's real intention behind your editing, like in the Land of Vree cuts and the Nick Jr. spot. And that kind of thing really brings this piece alive. Although there are a couple of spots where you're letting some cuts hang out and overstay their welcome, like the Deus Ex title, which has an interesting and active build, but is finished showing us anything about two seconds before you move on. And I think that comic book punch kid is timed out really well to the audio, but it's at a point in the track where it has no energy to back it up. The audio itself is a bit underwhelming for the pace at which you've decided to cut, which makes the piece a little dischordant, but I think the intentionality and playfulness of your editing makes it work in most cases. I will say, though, that either because of vimeo's poor audio sync during playback, or the timing of your cuts, most of the cuts are a frame or two early so you're not getting the full benefit of audio and visual dancing together. They're dancing real sloppy. You might want to first check your own render to see if it's any different on your site. Lastly, does the CBS spot feel like it's what you want to go out on? I would assume you have a bucket of things to choose from after 8 years, whereas something like the bendy "argument" text doesn't seem as sophisticated as you're capable of, and that's the taste you're leaving on our mouths when this is all over. Sure we get a little after dinner mint with a throwback to your intro, but it's still there, lingering. This is a pretty good presentation, overall. Site looks great too, cuts through unnecessary bullshit, and knows what's important. I'm citing the downsides, for the sake of betterment, but you should feel pretty good about it, and I imagine you do!
  5. It IS a long road, an endless road. But thankfully, it's a road you like walking. So it's less of a burden, and more of a challenge. One thing I'll say quickly, is what you're already coming around to realizing, which is that art and design are going to be hugely important to what you do on the production side of things. And when it's not, you're going to be unsatisfied and reeeeeeeal bored, as you've found. So start taking every opportunity to soak in as much of that as possible. Look to traditional sources of knowledge on those subjects, and look at everything that inspires you and deconstruct it to figure out what makes it so good. The tools are important, but you can know how to use all of the tools in the toolshed and still not know how to make anything you love, which is frustrating. The more you understand the design side, the more empowered you are to make the things you really want to make.
  6. So you're saying you're not getting anything out of it, partly because it's beneath you, partly because you choose not to get anything out of it. Why are you in that program in the first place? Bad gamble? What were you looking for, and can you actually find it there or are you set against it? Don't waste your time if you're unwilling or unable to benefit from the expense and effort. As for the degree, you'll find a few differing opinions regarding the value of having one in this industry. I've never found the piece of paper to be in any way useful, but would be nowhere without having had the education. But that's because the proof of my value is in my portfolio. It serves as my resumé, CV, and business card, but I wouldn't have my current portfolio without the education. I'd probably have a shit portfolio. But "motion graphics" is a broad set of disciplines, and there are lots of professions under its umbrella, some of which may be harder to prove your worth in via a portfolio solely. But honestly, I don't know what those professions are. Any position that involves making stuff is essentially a position where you're making evidence of your skillset and your value. Present that evidence, and who cares where you went to school? My perspective is that you don't ever want to be (as sbtread put it) "competing for the same job with a pool of other talented artists/animators" and NOT have anything that sets you apart. In the case where it literally comes down to who has what degree because there's no clear way to distinguish between you, you've already missed the boat. Because if a client or employer can't tell you apart from someone else, it means either 1) that employer has low visual acuity and you want to avoid them at all cost because you won't grow or prosper under their untutored direction or 2) you have no unique artistic voice to differentiate you. And if that's the case, then you're doing the same thing everyone else is doing, which makes you a tradesman, not an artist. And presumably you got into this because you like making art, not because you wanted a trade. That's just not typically why people get into this particular industry in any serious way. There are plenty of closely related professions that are more attractive as trades, like being a Flame compositor, that are satisfying and pay well, but someone like yourself who does personal projects in your chosen field is likely not going to be interested in engaging in that field as a tradesman. Bottom line: If there are cases where the actual degree has some value to you, that value is slight and probably orders of magnitude less than whatever you're paying for school. The reason you pay for school is for the guidance, the collaboration with similarly interested minds, and the resources, so that you can eventually do good work that subsequently evidences your value in the profession. If you're not getting all of that, then make a change. Either a change in how you use the resources you're paying for, or a change in the resources themselves. Either change your attitude, or change your education. Maybe both.
  7. Oh buddy that's awesome. I'm doing these tutorials/videos/whatevers and I might just have to put 'em on there and get the word out.
  8. Oh yes. Oh god. Oh god yes. Ooooh my god. Oh oh oh oh... I've been going down the rabbit hole of wordpress stuff for the last couple of days trying to figure out what it is, how malleable a "theme" is, how you, uh... y'know... how you do all the things. I'm kind of starting from ground zero. Explain like I'm 5. That would make me so happy.
  9. Yeah, the NDA is meant to be legally binding so that they have recourse to sue for damages if you share privileged information. So that's a bummer. But you can still ask to show the work in a portfolio, or try to come to a reasonable compromise with them, and maybe they'll agree to it. Worth a shot if you have work that you feel demonstrates your capacities. Obviously it would be nice to be able to have a short montage of your work, and that's something most people include in their portfolio, or use solely. But that's not necessarily the way you have to go, either. You can demonstrate your skills however you like, and market yourself however you want. You could do a reel of fake sports logo animations, or a short film about peanut butter-based lifeforms, or make a teaser trailer for a film you like... whatever you want. The thing you have now isn't horrible, per sé, it's just not doing what you need it to do. It's kind of doing the opposite. It's like a comedian coming out on stage and instead of being hilarious, he mostly stands there saying that he is. "I'm really funny" doesn't do anything for the audience, and they'll likely end up thinking he's a tool hahaha. And in your piece, you're not demonstrating any deep knowledge of 3d in general, nor anything that seems personally motivated (meaning you're showing stuff lacking ideas and not driven past the defaults of the software you're using). The thing that seems to have the most invested into it is the walk cycle with the guy holding up the "animation" text, which is only 2 seconds out of 30, while the rest falls pretty flat. If that's what you're interested in, and that's what gets you excited, then go after it. And if you want to incorporate your interest in 3d into that, then do it. When you make something you really want to make, your drive, motivation, and skills will more likely show through, but more importantly, your audience will probably find it more compelling. That's a pretty good combo.
  10. Hey Bryan! Cool. I'm assuming you made this to post somewhere to get the word out about your skills and availability, and not just as an exercise. If that's the case, I'm gonna say something that might bum you out a bit, which is that I think you actually may want to modify this to adopt a different strategy altogether. Not that you can't make something like this that states what you do and makes claims as to your value and skillsets, but making claims of your skills isn't remotely as powerful or convincing as simply showing your skills. Showing is always ALWAYS more powerful than telling, and this is an industry where everything we produce is yet another demonstrable example of our skills, and as a result, everyone assumes you'll just show them your work so that they can see for themselves what you do and how well you do it. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. What you're doing right now is making a video that both tells us and shows us some stuff, but here's how you know that's not a great approach: If your 3D stuff and your animations were as good as you're claiming they are, then you could just show us and you wouldn't have to tell us at all. That doesn't mean they're bad necessarily, but the fact that you feel like you need to tell us that they're good, and that you're good, strongly implies that you don't really believe that, and neither do we. If you made something amazing that you were excited about and poured a ton of energy into, we'd quickly get that, so you wouldn't have to say that you're "motivated, driven, ready and willing..." The proof would be in the pudding. I don't know why proof is in pudding, exactly, but pudding is pretty good, and if there's proof in it, it must be helping. So the point is, if you want to convince your audience of something, show them that it's true. A grid of cubes animated into the foreground with some mograph effectors doesn't do much to show me that you're a 3d artist. It shows me that you know some basic c4d mograph module stuff, but because you didn't really do anything above and beyond that, it actually ends up implying that you're NOT all that motivated or interested, which of course isn't what you'd like to convey. What an employer most likely wants to see is that you can take a project that you're given and you can make it feel special. That you can take something relatively benign or common and make it really compelling and interesting in some way. Grey gridded cubes falling off is neither special nor compelling, and a 3d artist needs to be able to achieve both of those things. So I'd challenge you to take a look at this again from the perspective that you're going to SHOW your audience something compelling, because the byproduct of that will be that we'll automatically assume you're motivated and driven and, better yet, we'll know for certain that you're good at what you do. And that's a pretty fun opportunity because you get to do whatever excites you, with the goal that you're going to excite everyone else. Then again, maybe somehow I missed the point.
  11. They're not faults, and what you're offering isn't "no good". You're just at that stage where you're being introduced to some new ideas and going "fuck, why didn't I think about that?" or "Shit, I don't even understand what that means yet." That's fine. Every one of us goes through that stage. It's how we get better. And better now than later. You're also not doing "poorly" in the field. You just want to be doing better. Always doing better. And I'm pointing out things you're not thinking about that might help you get on track to doing better. Two guys trudging around in mud at the bottom of a hill: one of them says, "I'm up to my ass in mud, this is bullshit," while the other is looking up the hill saying, "I'm gonna get my ass up that hill in a hurry." Be that second guy. Forget that mud. Get your ass up that hill. Yeah, you're gonna fall. But fuck it, you're moving. And yeah, when you get to the top of that hill, you're gonna see a higher hill, and you're gonna want to take that hill. So take it. So listen to the feedback, and figure out which parts of it are valuable, and which are kinda crap. Step back from your own work and look at it like someone you respect might look at it for the first time. And when you see it start to fall apart in front of your eyes, think about how much potential there is now to make it better. You were stuck in the mud before. Now you're free to bust out some cool shit.
  12. Holy smacks! I think youtube changed their policy or something. I've had some videos up there for a while and I just checked and some of them have those same shitty little popups now! What a bummer. For something like your reel, probably best to use vimeo anyway.
  13. I don't mean that to be disheartening in any way. You like to make stuff, and this is an opportunity to make stuff that you really like, for yourself. But when you do so, to really pay attention to why you're making it and who it's for. With regard to your site: What information do potential employers want/need about you, and in which order do they want it? If your reel is the thing you really want them to see, should they have to search for your reel and click to get to a page where they can watch it, or should it be front and center? If you're going to have an "About" page, should it probably have something in it? Do you even need an "About" page, or do you think information like where you graduated is really necessary when they want you for the work that you do? (Honest question. People have differing opinions on this. I say work comes first and last and everywhere in between, but others might say there's value in providing some background information) Should your contact page be an ad for vimeo and facebook and linkdin? (No, it shouldn't. It should be about your info and your branding, not theirs) Should you have a blog associated with your portfolio if your blog is effectively inactive? (No, you probably shouldn't have it on your portfolio site, and if you're even going to mention it, it should probably be an exceedingly informative thing) Should you use a different navigational format on every single page? (No, obviously, you shouldn't. It should be cohesive and there should be a seriously streamlined approach to this whole thing. You're lucky to get someone to visit your site, so don't make them fish around and try to figure your shit out for you) What is this cube stuff about? It's not particularly meaningful, and not particularly attractive. It's generic and doesn't tell me anything about you. Are you a visual communicator? Do you like to make cool things? This suggests the opposite because it's not that cool and says nothing. That probably sounds harsh, until you really look at it as your audience looks at it, because your audience is a bunch of people who are looking to hire someone who makes super cool shit that's really compelling. You've got an entire universe of possibilities to play with here. Go wild. Do something you love. And remember that we have to love it too. With regard to your reel: I have a lot of the same advice to give you that I give other people, so i'm just gonna point you to this video series Building a Reel
  14. It undoubtedly feels like that, but I think what's implied here (and it's true) is that companies that are asking for a resumé are hiring through their HR department, or something similar, which means there's a significant likelihood that you're asking to be placed at a company which is going to have very little concern for design or animation or art or whatever it is that you're interested in, and probably won't have attracted anyone else into the appropriate design/art departments to really mentor you well. And in addition to a paycheck, mentoring is what you want, right? You want to keep getting better, and to have the guidance you need to do that. You might indeed find that at a corporation, but it's iffy. You're not a seasoned pro, so the corporation that will hire you won't be an Ubisoft, it'll be some non-art related place in need of pre-branded ongoing collateral or something. That's not the worst strategy, but you might also consider making the best reel and portfolio you can, in order to convince an art director at a dedicated studio that you're worth a shot. Right now your self-presentation is really lacking, and you could easily set your mind to making it a more compelling reason to hire you. Your site is kind of a shit show and your reel is unfocused on anything particularly valuable and is overcompensating by being waaay too long. You're being way too precious with your own work in the reel and presenting quantity over quality, which isn't a strategy that's ever going to work out in the long run. There are a lot of opportunities to rethink your whole presentation, at every level, including branding. And you might find that when your presentation is more compelling, you catch the attention of people who want you for your work, and not your work history.
  15. Just curious what's goin on with this. Are there any plans to keep moving forward with it? You guys put a lot of work into re-laying the foundation on the back end!
  16. You apparently figured it out. Lesson #1: Always proofread (watch) your work in context.
  17. I think before we get to any kind of discussion here, gotta get this out of the way: Why do you have an ad popup 10 seconds into your own reel? I'm wagging my finger so hard at you right now. My finger hurts from how hard I'm wagging it. You hear that? You're hurting my finger!
  18. Yeah, pinterest is great. And you're right, I think if I used pinterest, or anything similar, I'd still put everything in one big pile for exactly the reason you mentioned. The random find is usually more valuable than pigeonholing. That said, I do have some small collections that are oriented to more specific interests. Things I just like to look at more regularly, usually because I'm trying to figure them out. And I'm glad you liked it! I figure this one was mostly obvious stuff, but stuff we all need to be reminded of when we hit a rut, cuz you know it happens.
  19. I don't know much about the Unity engine, or Source 2, but UE4 seems pretty incredible. We've all probably seen the video walkthrough of the paris apartment done by the archviz guy, but this other guy has a few videos of speed designing various environments in UE4 that are pretty cool.
  20. Cool. So something that may help to think about as you move forward is controlling the specificity of your imagery. For instance, as a viewer, I come into the experience of watching your video having no idea what it's going to be about. I see glitched out footage of rugby stuff and there are a million ways I can take that. They're not glitching out in a way that says anything in particular to me other than that something is broken. I don't just happen to guess "oh, it must be glitchy because no on really knows who will be the winner", because 1) that honestly doesn't make sense, but more importantly 2) because your glitchy graphics seem arbitrary and/or vague and could mean any one of a million things. You have the same problem with the most of the other elements here, too. This room/corner you've created is very vague, lacking specificity in detail, and therefore doesn't feel like a dirty temple enough for me to think "dirty temple". The animation of your screens is extremely vague, lacking in any detail that might say something specific like "they're fighting for it", and so I don't get the feeling that they're fighting for it, I just see the screens moving off the walls to form a kind of hexagonal shape around the pedestal, which is literally what they're doing and nothing more. Now, this isn't to say you've done a bad job or that it isn't good or anything. You've put a lot of work into it. But, moving forward, it'll really help to keep trying to look at it from the audience's perspective. You'll find that you need to get REALLY specific with the details, including the animation, and really specific with the storytelling to be able to convey to your audience what you had wanted. And in that process of getting more and more specific, you'll most likely start to realize that your original idea wasn't very fleshed out and you'll get more specific about that too. And that's great because then you'll understand the idea better, and that will help you make better details and tell the story better, and so on and so forth until you have something really satisfying.
  21. Hey Fabio! Congrats on trying something new! We've all been there, and it's daunting. As you work with the tools, they'll become more natural, and you won't worry about them so much. And that's great because what you really need to focus on is what you're communicating. Everything from the big idea(s) right down to the smallest details can convey something to your audience, so it all matters. That said, your overall idea here isn't very well worked out yet, so the details are really arbitrary. A stone pedestal with a stone (or marble-colored leather?) ball floating magically above it, in a corner formed by two walls made of something resembling either cement or... I don't even know, and nondescript floating vertical panels with ambiguously glitchy washed-out rugby footage displayed on them, and they all float together for some reason, and then the ball turns to reveal a logo, which then fades and... and what is all of this stuff? What does any of this mean? Where are we? Am I drunk? I'm assuming that either the assignment suggested that you use 3d, or you decided to try it for yourself, and that's fine. But you're definitely letting the tools define what you're making here, and that's almost never going to lead to something that people will enjoy watching. If I showed you how to use a hammer and then subsequently asked you to make me a meal, would you think "steak is good, so I'll make a steak, and i'll do it by hammering the steak until I think it's done"? No, you wouldn't. You always want to let the ideas lead the project, by which I mean first figure out what you really want to make, and then figure out how to make it. I give you a hammer and ask for a meal, so you think "Well, what kind of meal? Let's see.... is it morning? Oh, something breakfasty then. What's a typical breakfast in your region? Does it have eggs? I could prepare some eggs in a tasty way that might be surprising to you. Oh you normally do your eggs overeasy? Well..." And then you go about figuring out how to make eggs benedict with a special sauce of your own, because a hammered steak at 7am would be stupid for a bunch of reasons. The most important thing to remember here is that when you're doing design or motion graphics or whatever we're calling it these days, the first thing you need to figure out is 1) what you need to communicate to the audience. Once you understand that really well, then you figure out 2) HOW you're going to communicate that to the audience. That second step is where you come up with the ideas about what you're going to make, and those ideas are all about conveying the things that you needed to convey from the first step. Once you have your big ideas all mapped out, then you go to work and 3) make every visual decision be relevant to the idea(s) and therefore to the things you're trying to communicate to the audience. Every detail matters. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. At 30 frames per second, for 30 seconds, that's nearly 1000 pictures, and by my math, that's potentially worth one million words. That may be really dumb math applied to a dumb cliché, but it's meant to highlight how much descriptive potential your 30 second creation has. So if you find yourself making arbitrary decisions about what you're making, and all of the details that go into making that thing, then step back and ask yourself whether what you're trying to communicate is worked out well enough, and then whether your ideas about communicating those things are worked out well enough, and then whether your execution of those ideas are good enough. That right there, your own mental capacity to be critical about what you're making at every level, is the best tool to throw at a project. What the audience gets from what you've made is always the most important thing. Give them what they need to get the most out of it.
  22. I don't have my own reel. But I made a video about the entire process of making a reel for someone else. http://mograph.net/board/index.php?showtopic=28897
  23. This is a pretty good reel! I feel like I get a sense for what you're good at, the edit is playful, and your intro has some personality. I will say the words we all hate to hear, though, which is: cut it shorter, if you can. You're not overly precious about chopping up the work to suit the presentation, but you're really showing a lot more than you need to. This is absolutely a quality over quantity game, and what matters is the feeling you leave the viewer with, not whether you've convinced them that you've done a ton of work. Not that you can't also show a ton of work, but don't do it at the expense of unnecessarily dragging out an otherwise good presentation. I realize you've already done a significant amount of work with the edit and the sound design/music, and you might not be especially willing to head back to the cutting board, but it's something to consider. No big deal if not. It's still a good presentation.
  24. I'm on 10.10 and wish I were on 10.8 But I'm not upgrading from CS6 until it's something I can have and not rent, so... y'know... nevermind.
  25. Is this one any good? I never once showed it to anyone before putting it up. Absolutely. But I'm not competing with colleges. I'm really looking at this next one as an experiment, to see if I can just offset the cost of the time taken away from paying jobs. I still haven't figured out how to produce these any quicker, so I can't keep doing them without turning down jobs, which means I'm not breaking even. I don't want to charge the standard hefty sums, but that works out because if enough people think it's worth buying, then it can be super cheap, which is cool. Thanks, buddy. And you're welcome! I'd kind of consider this teaching. I'm sharing what I know and researching what I don't, and packaging it in the most digestible way I can (within reason).
  • Create New...