I was asked if a work was labor intensive and found it difficult to answer bluntly with a no or yes. Mainly because for all works there is in a way a lot of effort before it becomes that work. Maybe not directly for one specific work, but often i struggle with the first work of a serie and it can take years before it is in a final stage. Then the 10th or 11th in the serie I am able to produce faster because of the intensive labor of the first one.

As my skills as a sculptor improve it comes with the assumption of that improvement being the new standard. So when someone asks if a work is labor intensive i just think not more than what would be standard for me.

Maybe i also did not choose the most effortless route. The planning and steps needed to make a ceramic work take more effort than for example a lino print. Because i love ceramics i think the effort needed is worth it and i made that my standard. I guess it comes down to a personal experience of putting in effort.

What is it exactly, is it all three? Mostly I call my art a “work”, it's an artwork. Maybe because there is a very labor intensive aspect to my art. A piece would indicate a single thing, so I guess like a painting? An installation is an installation that is clear not much questions asked. So how about 4 tubes filled with mud and water? Pieces? Works? And the state of what process the artwork is in, is it dependent on if it's finished or not?

I wonder if babies can enjoy art. As tiny human beings, at some point they will be curious, explore, touch and put all their saliva over it. So I thought it would be interesting to think what art for babies would actually look like. They experience the world in an untainted way, maybe with underdeveloped senses but that doesn't mean they can't enjoy it. Moreover, how will it influence the child at a later age?

Before I was already thinking a little about the quality of art. You can say a artwork (whatever that is) is well made and the materials used are durable and of high quality. But first I should mention that the quality of something is determined by different aspects. Or  basically everything that makes it an artwork, the material, the concept, the artist. Especially the artist is important, we can even say that we judge the quality of the artist by the works that is made. If the work is of high quality then we expect the next artwork also being high quality. So is there a difference of quality in the artworks or in the artists? Or the quality of the moment the artwork is made. Expectations being met.

What I have been wondering lately is what makes an artwork art? What  are the qualifications to turn an 'object' into Art. I can make something and place it on a pedestal but I don't believe that turns every object into a (art piece) (piece of art). How can you combine different materials so that all together it 'becomes' (and unquestionable) at first sight, artwork. (And) I am not even saying it should be pretty or good.

I thought it might be the skill of the artist that makes it an art piece, work, or object. Because it takes time, effort and knowledge to create something and it's the skill of the artist that defines the quality of the art piece. But than I wondered: “What about ready-mades, found footage and things like outsourcing?”  So what exactly is the skill of the artist, is it just the skill of rhyming image? Or is it just different opinions that make or break a piece?