Ed Schlotzhauer

An artists journey

Category: Artist

Culling
I recently finished a major part of a large project to cull my “best” images. It was much harder than I thought. Culling is hard.
Why
More than once I asked myself “why?”. I thought this would take me 2-3 weeks. It ended up taking 4 months.
Why in the world would I take on something like this voluntarily? I felt it was necessary to be honest with myself.
I use a multi-layer “grading” system to promote my best work up the ladder. It has been in place for several years and it seemed time to do a reality check to see if I believed my system. It is too easy to rate a picture higher just because I like it without it being truly worthwhile.
And to be honest, there were a couple of concerns I wanted to check on. These are hard to express or admit, but I wanted to see if my recent work was as good as my earlier work and if my work, overall, was up to the standard I want for myself.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
How
My methodology was just to plow through it from beginning to end. I did not attempt to organize images by subject or style or anything. It is just a huge, roughly chronological list of my top-rated pictures.
My criterion is that any image in this top group meets my standards. I should be able to randomly select any one and I will be glad to hang it on my wall or enter it to a show. Of course, I don’t like each one equally. I have favorites. But any of this top group should be a very good representation of my work.
All the images are in a collection in my Lightroom Classic catalog. In general, the goal is to examine each image and keep or demote it. These are ones that have made it to the top of my list. In no case did I delete any pictures, except for a couple of cases of duplicates. Rejecting an image from my top category means demoting it a level, not removing it.
If things were actually that easy, it would have gone faster. The reality is that it is hard for me to keep from “improving” some of them. So I occasionally take side trips into editing. I enjoy that, but it is a time sink.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
What did I learn
I went back through nearly 20 years of images in my Lightroom catalog. I have used Lightroom since its beta release. It’s first production release was in 2007. That is quite a trip down memory lane.
I have not had time to do an intense analysis, buy here are some observations.
20 years ago I was more active, willing to do more vigorous physical activity in any weather. I have slowed down (or gotten smarter). I still get out in a lot of weather, but fewer long back country treks.
Way back, I seem to have been a little more willing to shoot anything that was mildly interesting. Now I am older and more cynical and judgmental. I have lost some of the child-like wonder of the world. I am less likely to shoot if I don’t feel it will be a good picture. This is something I need to work on.
Many of my oldest pictures are travel related. I still shoot a lot when traveling, and I like it, but I have improved my mindfulness and attention in everyday shooting near home. This is good.
My old pictures tend toward technical perfection and formal compositions. I have moved quite a way beyond that. For one thing, I’ve developed more taste for movement, both intentional camera movement and subject blurring. “Perfection” has a whole different meaning for me now. Abstraction is more common.
I’ve always had a “good eye” and the ability to isolate interesting events and creative compositions. It has gotten more refined with time. That is encouraging.
Many of the themes I used to shoot are still well represented in my newer work. I haven’t run off in wildly new directions. One thing I do note is that I seldom photograph people anymore. This is a shame, because I like a lot of what I did in the past. But times seem to have shifted, and I don’t want the potential hassles that can come with it anymore.
It is probably fair to say my older work showed more youthful enthusiasm while my newer work is more mature and investigative. I’m sure there are deeper insights that will come with more thought.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
What’s next
If I was really going to do this rigorously, I guess I would create sub-collections of these by topic: all landscapes, all architecture, all travel, etc. That way I could more closely compare the changes that have happened in the treatment of similar subjects over time. I probably won’t.
E.B. White said that “analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies of it.” I think it would be like that for me if I did such a detailed analysis.
I’m not really that interested in the fine points of how I have changed. I will just note that it happened. The reality is that I wanted to sneak up on that question I was afraid to consider too openly: is my current work as good as my old work? With some reservations, I will say that the new is good.
What I do observe and mentioned before is that I have lost some of the child-like wonder and innocence that used to be there. I need to do more stupid, crazy, improbably things just to see what happens. Even if I’m pretty sure it won’t be a keeper. Just to see it.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Was it worth it
It is harder to definitively say it was worth it. This took a lot of time. But yes, critically reviewing what I considered my best work over the last 20 years was worth it. Just renewing the memories was worth it.
I tried to be brutal in my screening, but I am surprised that I only “demoted” about 20% of my collection. The changes in the quality of my sensors and lenses over time is obvious. A surprise is that did not necessarily affect my perception of the quality of the images. When a jpg image taken with an old 6 MPix sensor and only a fair lens can hold its own next to one taken with a great lens on a 47 MPix sensor shooting RAW, that says it is something other than just technical perfection.
Expressing this indefinable quality still eludes me. I got some insight on the effect, but I cannot clearly put it in words. But I guess some insight is more than I had before.
I called this exercise culling. It turned out to be much more. I encourage you to do something like this as a self-check.
A parting observation
I just went through my entire collection of “good” images. I had to edit quite a few of them while I was at it. They just needed it. I couldn’t pass over them without it.
While going back through the collection to review them for this article, I had to edit some of them again. Even though I had just been through them.
This brings up something I have learned about myself over the years: an image is an opinion that changes with time. Even over the course of a few weeks I can change my opinion. This is one reason prints are important. They freeze an opinion at a point in time.
May 20, 2026
No I in Team
It’s a well-worn motivational expression: There’s no I in “team”. Whenever I hear it, I automatically turn it around to reverse the meaning. My art is not a team sport.
Teamwork
Teamwork can be a powerful force. Getting a group together and focused on a common problem can have amazing results. The comradery built can be very strong. In extreme cases, like a military group, members will sacrifice their lives for each other.
This is a phenomenon that we seldom find in our everyday lives. Perhaps you have the good fortune to have been a member of a great team. It is probably something you remember as a powerful experience.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Some things need a team
There are obvious cases where a team is required. Most sports require a team. No single player, no matter how skilled, can play all the positions simultaneously. All must work together to defeat the opposing team.
A team can be a force multiplier. The group can perform more physical work than an individual. Think of a bucket brigade.
Today’s workforce emphasizes teamwork and collaboration. It is taken as a truth that good teamwork improves productivity. I can sort of agree. Having seen both sides, I can say that working in a well-functioning team is much more productive and fun than being in a situation where there is conflict and tension.
I say “sort of” because I also do not believe that teams are the best structure for everything.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Introvert
Here’s one of my problems with the team concept: I’m an introvert. Group activities drain me rather than energizing me. An introvert can be a good team contributor, but it takes a savvy leader to make it happen. It is all too easy for a quiet introvert to be dominated by loud extroverts.
“As an introvert, photography has always appealed to me in great part because it’s not a team sport—it’s something I can do by myself, in places and times of my choosing, and for no other reason than to satisfy my own sensibilities.”
Guy Tal
I have too often seen group efforts steered by the loudest or most opinionated members. The results were not always excellent.
As an introvert, I have a built-in suspicion of group activities. It is not an environment I naturally thrive in. It can happen, but it is rare.
Here is an example of it working: I worked with a fairly consistent group of excellent engineers for several decades. It was extremely productive and congenial. We got along well, we respected each other, we could disagree and resolve issues, and we supported each other. Managers and projects would come and go, but our core group stayed mostly intact. That is not to say we were best friends. We didn’t socialize much, although now that we are retired, several of us still get together weekly for lunch. The team bond was that strong.
That is a situation I don’t expect to see repeated much these days. But is my example of what a good team can be.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Artist
However, I am an artist now. I think that changes everything. The rules, the expectations, the responsibilities are all different now. It is a different world than the corporate environment.
Corporations are anonymous groups of people working to make a profit. The individuals doing the work, no matter how creative, are seldom known. Apple back in the Steve Jobs and Jonny Ivy days might be the exception.
But for an artist it is the opposite. My work is judged to be my own. My name is on it. It is very personal. It should be the best work I am capable of doing in any given situation. Good or bad, I’m the one held responsible.
As an artist and an introvert, I work in my head. Quietly. Other people’s voices and opinions are distracting noise. What I create is based on my own vision and decisions. After I have created a piece, I am very willing to listen to your opinion of how I could have made it better, but I don’t want you there talking to me while I am in the field working. If I were to listen to you there, the resulting work would be our piece, not mine.
Collaboration
This strikes to the heart of one of the great beliefs of the corporate world, that collaboration is the key to everything. I disagree.
Some proponents of collaboration say that results achieved by collaboration are always superior to results of any individual. Again, I disagree. I have seen good and bad results from collaboration.
I will claim that the results are about the average of the capability of the group. But in a lot of groups, some of the individuals are below average. Therefore, the group result seems better. This is the actual benefit to the corporation: collaboration usually produces acceptable results.
Whether or not collaboration is superior in corporate settings, I believe that it is always a mistake for me in my art, mainly fine art photography, which is my subject. My reasoning is that a work of art is an expression of the artist’s creativity and vision and feelings and skill. If I collaborate with someone, I cannot put my name on it and claim it as my creation. You would not see me; you would see a group effort.
Besides, I am not interested in making acceptable images. I strive to create excellent ones. If I fail, I want it to be completely my fault.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
No Team
I believe an artist is required to succeed or fail on his own. The kind of art I do is not a team sport. What I create is solely my responsibility. It will stand or fall on my ability. No excuses. No one else is directly contributing to it.
I would love to have a mentoring or support group of fellow artists, but I have not found one around me and there is a rather small population of local artists I share a vision with. It seems like it would be rewarding to be able to try out ideas with other artists and have a close enough group that they could tell me when I am veering off in the weeds. Shared ideas, education, and encouragement would be great.
But even if I had such a group, I would not collaborate with them on any of my works. Suggestions might be given and received, but it would be totally my decision what to do with the advice. The result would be mine and my responsibility. All praise or blame falls on me.
A strange side effect of this is that being an artist is a kind of arrogance. It is my work, my creativity, my vision. No one can tell me what I should do.
I did it my way
This is an extreme position, but it is the way that seems necessary for me. I can’t create in a noisy environment with other people trying to give me inputs. It’s part of my introversion. An atelier would not work for me, although I can see that it would be a good fit for some.
I will have to be content being a lone wolf, working independently, taking full responsibility for my own creation. And at this point in my life, I would not want it to be any other way. My purpose is to exercise my creativity and create art that pleases me, not to become commercially successful in group projects that I contribute to.
There’s no I in team. I am not in a team. A team is not where I work. That would feel lonely and isolated to some, but it energizes me.
April 29, 2026
Risk
Risk is a part of anything we do. Especially if we are an artist. We constantly try new things that may not work. In creative work we often do not clearly know where we are going. That leads to a lot of failed experiments and dead ends. When we try and fail, is that bad? Is the risk worth it?
Risk
I suspect none of us like to think much about risk taking and failure. But we’re artists. We have to be big boys and girls. Art is risk. We will fail in many of the things we try. Is that a reason not to do it?
Author Herman Melville once said, “It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation.” I believe the greater risk in our artistic life is to fail to be creative.
AI is constantly learning how to mimic all existing art. The only solution is to be different from what exists, including our own past work. Not different for the sake of being different, but fresh, new creativity.
If we are repeating the same boring stuff that 99% of photographers do, what have we contributed to art or to ourselves? Chasing likes on social media is normalizing. That is, it brings us down to the average level of everyone else.
Theodore Roosevelt said: “It is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have tried to succeed. In this life we get nothing save by effort.” If we are an artist, the risk is to not give it our full effort and not become what we can be. To let what is within us die because of fear of failure. That seems too great a fate to risk.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Attitude
Our attitude about failure will have a lot to do with our results. A reality for many of us is that, if we are not failing, we are not stretching ourselves and developing new skills or vision. As creatives we cannot play it safe. We must be risk takers.
I love a quote from a blog by Benjamin Hardy. He was talking about Molly Bloom who said “The moment you realize you can try and fail — and that everything will be okay — then you are free to create.“
This is a liberating event in our creative journey. Failure isn’t final. It is not even necessarily bad. Failure leads to growth. When you fail, no one comes and takes away your camera or your brushes. No one (who counts) even laughs at us. Realizing we can fail and go on with no consequences frees us to try without worrying much about failing.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Learn by doing
We don’t upgrade our skills and exercise our creativity just by thinking about it. We must take action. There is no way to decide if the result is good until we see the result. But just taking random action will usually lead to random, unwanted results. We need a way to follow a path that will take us to desired results.
You are probably familiar with the “do it, try it, fix it” loop. It goes by different names, but the concept is the same. This is an excellent process for improving things.
The basic idea is you try something new. Then you evaluate the results, Was it a success or an improvement? Decide what, if anything, you want to keep of this experiment to incorporate into your tool set. Then, based on the evaluation, plan what to try next. That becomes the basis of the next experiment. It is important to realize this is a cycle, meaning it continually loops and repeats. It is a proven process of directed experiments leading to growth.
Evaluate
At the evaluation stage many experiments will be tossed out. They did not take us in the direction we want to go. It was a failure, but that does not mean we failed. We just tried something that we decided didn’t work for us.
This is part of a process. It is a deliberate plan to systematically push the limits. To do that, we will try a lot of things that don’t work out satisfactorily. The failures are expected, planned even. Not something to be ashamed of. We should be happy to know we tried. Now we are free to do another experiment in a different direction.
Please understand that a consequence of this is that we must be prepared to deliberately reject much of our work. We must have a standard to evaluate against that allows us to separate acceptable from unacceptable. Don’t be afraid to call some of our effort unacceptable. And do not be discouraged.
It is kind of like the story of Edison inventing the light bulb. He found 10,000 things that didn’t work. They weren’t failures, they were insights.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Freedom
Freedom is at the core of the process. We are not just trying random things and mostly being disappointed with the results and insecure with our creativity. Instead, we are following a deliberate process of improving our self and our art. Knowing we can try anything with no fear of failure is extremely liberating. It is part of the self-confidence we must have as artists.
It is easy to get discouraged and think of our self as the failure. We have probably all felt like a fraud who has no right considering themself an artist. Remind yourself that we have to change and grow creatively, and to do that requires a lot of risk taking and failed experiments. Following a process like outlined above makes it a methodical plan. It helps us keep in mind that the failure is not a personal failing but a necessary and expected outcome of the growth process. It can be exciting. We can risk more when the fails are not catastrophic.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
No fault
There is a tendency in our culture to want things to be “no fault”. It seems shameful and damaging to our fragile self-esteem to be at fault for something. So, we have no fault insurance, no fault divorces, etc. It is a reluctance to take blame for something that didn’t work.
I’m suggesting that when we take risk with our art, and the result is a failure, we are responsible for the failure. It is our art. We made the creative decisions that led to the outcome we didn’t like, or we were not skilled enough in our craft to pull it off. No one else did it. Accept that as a growth opportunity.
I made the point that our artistic failure is not a personal failure. I strongly believe that is true. An artistic failure does not have blame or shame. We had an idea to do something creative. We took a risk. It didn’t work out the way we anticipated. That is OK. A failed experiment does not make us a failed artist or a bad person. The benefit is that it informs our future efforts. It creates a steppingstone forward. It is a healthy risk.
If you always succeed, you’re not trying hard enough.
Woody Allen
April 22, 2026
Two Questions and a Problem
I don’t like to get too deep into philosophy, but sometimes I step in it and get some on me. Lately I have pondered the question of what is good in art. A quote by Henry James brought up 2 questions and a problem that I can’t resolve.
The quote
Henry James was a well-known literary critic in the late 1800’s to the early 1900’s. Many people rightly disagreed with Henry James, but he was articulate and good at presenting and defending his points, and never at a loss for an opinion.
Even though his work was in literary criticism, many of his comments seem to me to apply to visual art, too.
Anyway, James once proposed what might be a template for art criticism. Paraphrased, it is “What is (the artist) trying to do? Does he do it? Was it worth it?”
When I first read it, it seemed reasonable. But the more I considered it, the more I got sucked into a spiral of imponderables. I will be forced to reveal the shallowness of my philosophical thinking.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Author’s intent
This first question is the artist’s intent. At first, it seems like it shouldn’t be a problem. We just need to decide what the artist wanted to create or achieve with the work. I often hear this given as a necessary step in analyzing art.
But… how can we know? Unless the artist clearly stated their intentions, all we can do is speculate. Any criticism of the work would start with I think they were trying to do this, or I think their goal was to create that.
Doesn’t that setup a framework of our own ideas that we evaluate the work against? That seems invalid and unfair to the artist.
Some genres might be deduced with relative accuracy. We can look at some images and think that “that seems to be a traditional realistic landscape along the lines of Ansel Adams.” But it is still our interpretation of their intent. Therefore, it may or may not be right.
And, on the other hand, is the artist required to justify each piece by thoroughly describing their intent? Without doing this, does it open them to criticism based on any criteria the viewer sets up? What about the artist who wants to leave such questions to the viewer? Are they sabotaging themselves?
So, I’m already stuck on the first question and haven’t even gotten to the one I called a problem.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Author’s success
The second question embedded in James’ statement is whether the artist achieves his intent. To me, this still has the problem of not being addressable without knowing the answer to the first question. If we don’t clearly know what they are trying to do, can we say if they did it?
We can criticize it for being out of focus, or what we consider to be an unbalanced composition, or poor lighting or exposure. But maybe the artist was making a satirical comment about postmodernism and the meaninglessness of meaning. Maybe what we criticized was exactly what they intended to do, and they successfully did it.
Without understanding intent, can we do more than saying “I don’t like it” or “this doesn’t appear to be as well done as other images that seem similar”? Maybe both are true statements, but do they address the artist’s intent?
There’s a big difference between saying “that didn’t succeed by my standards” and “that did not achieve what the author was trying to do”. One is judging it by my standards, the other is judging it by the author’s intent, which we may not know.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
The problem
But then comes the problem for me. The part of the question that asks, “was it worth it?” Who can answer that?
A Twentieth Century science fiction author named Theodore Sturgeon put forth what is known as Sturgeon’s Law. He said that “ninety percent of everything is crap”. These are words I have lived by, but my corollary to this is that Sturgeon was an optimist.
I have become rather jaded in my view of art. It seems like a small percentage of the art I see, including photography, including mine, has any great inherent worth. Value is subjective. A Rolex watch has a high price tag, but low value to me. I don’t want one. I know people who value them highly and wear them. A personal value judgment that I can’t criticize.
It is a joy to me when someone sees one of my pictures and values it enough to spend money to have it. It means that they want to hang it to see every day and it has worth to them. But that is a personal judgment based on their values. Did it mean that picture was worth it? Well, it was to them. Probably to me. But not necessarily to someone else. Worth seems a very subjective thing.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
What does it mean for me
I guess my takeaway is that I’m not going to precisely and accurately figure out the value of other artist’s work and other people are not going to be the faithful judges of my work. So, I should stop being a critic and I should develop a thick skin against criticism from others.
Should I have to write a detailed description of my intent and thought process behind a picture? I hope not. Most of the time I couldn’t give a very impressive explanation. I much prefer to leave it to my viewers to create their own story.
I have developed a cynical view of theories and movements and lots of words poured out by people who talk but don’t do.
If a critic or a juror or a gallerist or another artist gives me feedback, I should receive it gratefully as input and consider it, but not necessarily take it as a truth carved on stone that I must act on. It matters more to me if the image met my expectations. If it succeeded according to my intent. They did not know what was in my mind.
I see a scene or I have an idea, and I make an image that represents the best of my ability. If it is a true representation of what I saw or felt or wanted to convey, and if it is a level of creativity and craftsmanship that I am proud of, that, to me, may be a good image. If it delights me, it is worth it. But not all images that meet my intent actually have lasting power. That is another discussion.
I find that when I over-analyze my art or get too formal in making it, some of the life gets sucked out of it. Better results come from following my instincts and my feelings. Doing that leads to pictures that I can say are worth it.
“What is the artist trying to do? Does he do it? Was it worth it?” The 2 questions and a problem I brought that I struggle with. I can only discuss them accurately about my own pictures.
The deeper questions of criticism will have to be left to philosophers. I don’t know what makes good art. But I know what delights me.
I decided to accept as true my own thinking. I have already settled it for myself, so flattery and criticism go down the same drain, and I am quite free.
Georgia O’Keeffe
The purpose of art is to inform and delight.
Horace, 1st century AD
April 1, 2026
Impatience
Here’s a confession: one reason I’m a photographer is that I’m too impatient to do any other type of art I like (except writing). Have you ever considered that photography is a form of impatience?
Not painting
I long ago figured out that I could never be happy painting. I can’t draw well. Most of my grandkids exceeded my drawing ability when they were about 4. Well, I have one who is only 6 weeks old, so I can do better than him. But even more than my inability to draw, I know that I would not be able to keep my interest going through rounds of sketches and design trials, and through days or weeks of work manually laying pigment on a canvas to create a finished work.
And then if I want another copy, I must either photograph it and make prints or go through the manual work of painting another one. I guess that enforced scarcity works to the advantage of a painter by keeping numbers low and prices high.
I’m just not wired that way. If I see something interesting, I want it captured now. And if you like it and want a print, I want to be able to make a copy for you quickly.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Not short attention span
Based on what I said, you might assume I have a short attention span. But that’s not true. In my career as an Engineer I would often get so lost in a project that I might disappear in it for hours without remembering to eat or go to the bathroom. Flow states were common. Even now, I can spend hours reading or writing or working on images on the computer. No, I can focus my attention fully on something I am interested in.
The problem is a type of boredom that stems from impatience. If I am not engaged, if something is not keeping my interest, I tend to avoid or abandon it. More of my life is behind me than in front of me. I can feel that, and my reaction is to walk away from things that I consider a waste of my time. Time can’t be saved, only spent well.
For instance, as I write this, it is tax time in the US. I gather up all of my data and hand it off to someone else to go through the details of figuring it and filling out the forms. It is worth it to me to pay them. Otherwise, I would go crazy beating my head against that mindless bureaucracy.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Spontaneity
I find that in my art, I love spontaneity. If I see something interesting, I want to capture it immediately. Spending hours, if necessary, working it on the computer is not a problem. I did the raw image capture when I saw it. That satisfied my basic need.
My photography is almost exclusively “in the moment”. I am a hunter-gatherer. Planning usually does not go farther than “it should be stormy tomorrow. Maybe I’ll head east to see if I can find some good shots without getting caught in a tornado.” Literally, being aware of tornadoes, hail, or serious thunderstorms is a primary consideration where I live. But that makes for some great images.
I know that some people plan their shoots in great detail. They want to know the exact day and time and location to be at to get “the shot.” This doesn’t work for me. Unless it is a commercial shoot, that much planning narrows my options too much. It takes all the spontaneity out.
I don’t care about “the shot” as much as finding something interesting that I can exercise creativity on.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Work with what’s there
Why do I work this way? The simple answer is “it works for me.” I am generally happy with the results I get, even if I sometimes come back with nothing. The thrill of the hunt is reward enough. It is a percentage game. Win a few, lose a few, the process is satisfaction. The benefit of finding a new viewpoint or something unique is enough.
Perhaps I’m an endorphin junky. If I’m out and about my subconscious may recognize something, even if it is just a potential to be worked. It alerts me to it, and this creates a burst of light/energy/warmth, whatever. It is difficult to describe. But there is a joy and excitement of discovery. Each find creates a kind of high. I would not be finding these things if I was fixed to a shot list and schedule.
Plus, there is something about my psyche that enjoys working with a real scene rather than creating a fictitious world. I may take the image, or bits and pieces of several and create something different, abstract, even surreal. but ultimately my raw material is real world elements.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
It fits me
So, I have learned and rationalized that photography fits me. I prefer to “run and gun” instead of carefully planning. I want to be inspired by what I discover and be able to capture it immediately. Then go on to the next scene that stimulates me.
It’s not so much the overall time. An image may require hours of computer work to perfect. It is the lack of barrier between what I see and what I capture that keeps me going. My creativity likes to work spontaneously and in the flow. That is one reason I could never express my art in painting.
Sure, I could try to do plein air painting or paint from photographs. But why? Plein air painting seems to me to be attempting to (slowly) capture a photograph. And if I were to paint from a photograph, I would have to wrestle with the question of why not just print the photograph?
So, over time, I concluded that photography is my art. Besides not being able to draw, I would be bored trying to express my vision so slowly and painfully. I like to move fast when I see something interesting. It is a joy to get in a flow, to follow my mood and instincts.
I have great respect for good painters. But I could not be content doing what they do. Too much impatience.
March 25, 2026