Bring on spring.

I've been busy making jackets in costume. 3 to be exact! As well as making a dress for myself. Stupidly I fell in love with the pattern on a chiffon material and bought it and now i'm dealing with the consequences of my actions. Chiffon is not an easy material to work with. I'm getting there with a little help from the costume girls. I've got the hard part done, the darts in the front. Now I've got to do some french seams then attach it to the under-dress and hopefully it will be a beautiful masterpiece so I can move onto my next dress! I've asked for a sewing machine for my birthday so then I can start churning out the clothes!
It will be a shame to leave costume, i'm not fussed about doing an elective, i'd be quite happy just doing a major and minor but hey, those are the rules.

After Jamie mentioned the renaissance period and my photorealist techniques I've had a little look into it and found this interesting website which explains David Hockneys' ideas and why they should not be taken seriously.
http://www.goodart.org/hockney.htm

Hockneys' theory was that back in the renaissance times they didn't know how to paint and that they had to use  camera obscuras and curved mirrors, like a projector, and that they would then trace the image.
Hockney analysed the work of the 'old masters' and argued that level of accuracy that they produced is impossible to create by 'eyeballing it' Since then Hockney and physicist Charles Falco (who was also an expert in optics) have produced a number of publications on positive evidence of the use of optical aids.

Hockney's book prompted intense debate among artists and art historians. In particular it has spurred increased interest in the actual methods and techniques of artists among scientists and historians of art and science. The historians have in general reacted unfavorably and think that Hockney and Falco's theory is an accusation that the old masters 'cheated' and intentionally obscured their methods.
Art historians have criticized Hockney's argument on the grounds that the use of optical aids has little value for explaining the overall development of western art, and that historical records and paintings and photographs of art studios, as well as present day realist artists, demonstrate that high levels of realism are possible without optical aids.