darren r hill

the creative minimalist

Discover why mastering fewer creative tools boosts speed and productivity. Learn how familiarity accelerates flow, reduces cognitive load, and unlocks deeper creativity. Focus on depth over breadth to compound skill, streamline workflows, and make your tools disappear so the work can truly begin.
Read more…
There’s a moment that we all, as creative people know: we’re stuck, and we start to think the problem is the gear I have. But the creative tools you already have are almost certainly enough. So why do we want more? Why do we think the creative fix is in the new shiny?
Read more…
The Habits That Quietly Kill Creative Output (And What to Replace Them With) Here are several creativity killers with advice on how to stop them and creative habits to replace them.
Read more…
How to Tell If a Creative Idea Is Worth Finishing (And When to Let It Go). Is that song, this painting, my story about an AI enhanced goldfish worth finishing? Here’s how to decide if your art, song or writing is worth continuing. The rhyme and reasoning behind deciding what creative projects to finish.
Read more…
Discipline and willpower are not the super powers of successful creatives. it’s about crafting effective systems that naturally guide behaviour. Learn how these creative frameworks can help you achieve more without the constant struggle.
Read more…
Creative projects with the most freedom are often the hardest to finish, or even start. The ones with tight constraints tend to move faster. And sometimes come out better. Three simple rules for creative freedom
Read more…

Why Fewer Tools Makes You a Faster Creative

There’s a version of creative productivity that looks like this: the right plugin for every job, a different app for every stage of the process, a growing library of presets, brushes, fonts, and gear for every possible situation.

And there’s a version that looks like this: a handful of tools you know so well you never have to think about them.

The second one is faster. By a lot.

Not because it’s simpler. Because familiarity is a speed multiplier. And the more you spread your time across tools you haven’t fully learned, the less of that multiplier you get.

Unfortunately, I seem wired to strive for the first 😭.

The Cost of Starting From Scratch

Every unfamiliar tool has a startup cost. Before you’ve made a single creative decision, you’re navigating menus, watching tutorials, second-guessing settings, wondering which of the twelve export options you’re supposed to use. Sound familiar? (As an aside, I just switched back to Final Cut for editing my videos… and all the above were all too real.)

That cost compounds across a session. It’s not just the time. It’s the mental load. You’re using cognitive energy on the tool itself, energy that isn’t available for the work.

The familiar tool has none of that. You open it and you’re already in. The producer who knows their synth inside out doesn’t spend the first twenty minutes of a session figuring out the routing. The photographer who knows their one camera body doesn’t fumble with the menu in the moment the light is right. The writer who knows their software doesn’t lose a thought to formatting.

The tool disappears. The work begins.

That’s not a minor efficiency saving. It’s the difference between a session that builds momentum and one that never quite gets going.

What Mastery Actually Feels Like

There’s a well-studied psychological state called flow: the experience of being so absorbed in a task that self-consciousness drops away and the work seems to happen almost automatically. Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi spent decades researching it, and one consistent finding is that flow is most accessible to people with high levels of skill in what they’re doing.

The reason is automaticity. When the mechanical aspects of a skill become automatic, they stop drawing on conscious attention. The musician stops thinking about the chord shapes and starts thinking about the feel of the phrase. The painter stops calculating the colour mix and starts feeling the composition. The editor stops finding the shortcut and starts making the cut.

It’s like creative muscle memory

This is what experienced creatives mean when they talk about a tool “getting out of the way.” It’s not that the tool becomes invisible. It’s that you’ve internalised it. And once that happens, the cognitive space that was occupied by the mechanics is free for actual creative thinking – you can read more about creative flow here.

You can’t internalise ten tools at once. Your time is finite. Depth with fewer tools gets you to automaticity. Breadth across many keeps you at the learning stage indefinitely.

Bonus thought: the tools you use most probably have shortcuts you haven’t learned yet. Those are free speed.

The Compounding Return of Depth

There’s simple math to this that’s easy to miss.

Five hundred hours with one tool builds a foundation. Every hour adds to the previous ones. The knowledge compounds. You get faster, more intuitive, and more creative with it, because you’re not spending any time relearning.

Five hundred hours split across ten tools gives you fifty hours with each. Fifty hours is enough to get started. It’s not enough to get fluent.

Fluency is where the interesting creative decisions happen. It’s where you stop asking “how do I do this?” and start asking “what should this be?” That shift is where the creativity lives.

Writers who commit to one editing tool learn the quirks, the keyboard shortcuts, the structural features, the workarounds. Filmmakers who commit to one editing software develop an intuition for the timeline (as I found out above!). Illustrators who stick to a limited palette learn what that palette can do that a wider one can’t.

The depth pays off in ways that are hard to predict until you’re there. But the path there is consistent: stay longer with less.

What to Do Instead

None of this is an argument for never trying a new tool. New tools can solve real problems. But there’s a useful question to ask before you start exploring: what specific gap in my current workflow would this fill?

If you can name it clearly, that’s worth investigating. If the answer is closer to “I just want to try something different”… that curiosity is fine, but treat it as exploration, not an upgrade to your core process.

The more practical step is an honest audit. How many tools did you actually use in the last month? Not ones you own or have installed. Ones you used. For most people, the answer is a small number. Those are your core tools. Go deeper with them.

Mastery isn’t about owning fewer things. It’s about knowing fewer things well enough that they stop slowing you down.SourcesReuse notes: Tools, mastery, workflow, flow states, speed, all creative disciplinesLink to blog in bio when post goes live

Thank you for reading this post. Please share your thoughts in the comment section below.
namaste
d
xox

If you enjoyed this post please support my writing by making a donation of any amount.

Sign up for my (ir)regular newsletter to keep up to date with my creative adventures, including special offers, and join me on Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Pinterest

31 May 2026
The Next Tool Won’t Fix It: Why More Gear Doesn’t Make Better Creative Work

There’s a moment most of us creative people get. You’re stuck on something. The project isn’t coming together the way you imagined. And then it occurs to you: maybe the problem is the tool I am using. That new shiny thing they are raving about on the socials could be the solution.

Maybe the DAW is limiting you. Maybe the right plugin would unlock something. Maybe if you had better brushes, a different camera, that specific notebook everyone keeps recommending…

I’ve been here more times than I’d like to admit and my credit card company is happy to support me in my endeavours. But I’ve learned that getting more stuff is almost always wrong.

The Acquisition Trap

There’s a term in music circles for this: Gear Acquisition Syndrome, or GAS. It’s been studied seriously enough to warrant an academic book on the subject, Gear Acquisition Syndrome: Consumption of Instruments and Technology in Popular Music by Jan-Peter Herbst and Jonas Menze. The research describes it as the “unrelenting urge to buy and own instruments and equipment as an anticipated catalyst of creative energy.”

The key word there is anticipated. The creative energy doesn’t arrive with the purchase. We anticipate that it will.

And it makes psychological sense. Buying new gear triggers a dopamine release. The anticipation of what you’ll make with it is genuinely exciting. But that feeling is about the acquisition, not the output. Once the novelty settles, the work is still the work. The blank page is still blank. The same creative friction you were feeling before is still there, waiting.

Musicians aren’t alone in this. Writers have the equivalent in the perfect notebook, the right pen, the new app that’s going to change their process. Photographers chase camera upgrades. Filmmakers justify new lenses. Artists accumulate materials they’ll get around to using – but how much of the stuff in that IKEA cart is being used! The specific tools differ. The pattern is the same.

Why More Choice Makes It Harder

Even when tool acquisition isn’t the problem, having too many options still is. Psychologist Barry Schwartz built an entire framework around this in The Paradox of Choice: the more options we have, the harder it becomes to make decisions, and the less satisfied we tend to be with the ones we do make.

In creative work, that friction is constant. Every session that begins with “which tool do I use for this?” is a session that’s already losing momentum before anything has been made. Every plugin folder with 200 options, every brush set with unlimited variations, every app with ten different ways to format the same thing… all of it adds decision overhead to a process that needs to flow.

The familiar tool removes that overhead entirely. You pick it up and you’re already in the work. That’s not a small thing.

Bonus tip: most apps have a favourites option, use it for the settings you always use

What the Tool Is Actually Promising

Here’s what I think is really going on with the acquisition impulse: tools promise to solve a creative problem, but the problem is almost never the tool.

The problem is usually the idea. Or the skill. Or the discipline to sit with something uncomfortable long enough for it to become something good.

A new plugin can’t fix a weak melody. A new camera can’t fix a weak composition. A new notebook can’t fix a writing block. The tool is neutral. It does what you tell it to do. And if you haven’t got something to tell it yet, more sophisticated tools just give you more sophisticated ways of avoiding the work, and at often considerable financial cost.

Some of the most distinctive creative voices in any discipline got there with very limited tools. Early hip-hop producers worked with one sampler and found ways to make that constraint into a sound. Jack White famously limited himself to recording on three tracks, not because he couldn’t afford more, but because the limitation forced decisions that shaped his music. Countless painters and writers and filmmakers have produced their most personal work with the simplest setups, because the simplicity kept the focus on what actually mattered.

The tool doesn’t make the work. The work makes the tool worthwhile.

What to Do Instead

None of this means never buy new tools, upgrade your setup, or explore new software. That can be genuinely useful. But there’s a difference between acquiring tools to solve a specific, identified creative need and acquiring tools because you’re stuck and hoping something external will unstick you.

The more useful question, when you feel the pull toward the next tool, is: what is this purchase actually solving? If you can name a specific, concrete limitation in your current work(flow) that this new thing will address, that’s a reasonable conversation to have with yourself. If the honest answer is closer to “I don’t know, I just feel like this would help”… well, perhaps the new shiny isn’t the solution for when you’re stuck.

The tools you already have are almost certainly enough. The question is whether you’re using them as well as you could.

Thank you for reading this post. Please share your thoughts in the comment section below.
namaste
d
xox

If you enjoyed this post please support my writing by making a donation of any amount.

Sign up for my (ir)regular newsletter to keep up to date with my creative adventures, including special offers, and join me on Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Pinterest

24 May 2026
The Habits That Quietly Kill Creative Output (And What to Replace Them With)
There’s a version of this I know well. The idea is there. The time is there. The tools are there. And yet… nothing actually gets made.

For a long time I thought that was a motivation problem. A discipline issue. Something I needed to push through or fix about myself. My bad.

But now I see, it is mostly habit. Specifically, a handful of habits that look like creative work but are actually replacing it. Creative habits that are anything but.

Over-Planning Instead of Doing

Planning feels productive. It really does. You’re thinking about the project, mapping it out, refining the idea. It has the texture of creative work without the vulnerability of actually making something. And that’s the issue.

At a certain point, planning stops being preparation and starts being avoidance. Art is safer as an idea than as a thing in the world that might get rejected.

I’ve started whole songs, novels, and other creative projects in my head. In detail. Multiple times. Some of them never made it to an actual instrument or even the blank page.

The fix isn’t to stop planning entirely. It’s to notice when planning has gone past useful and turned into a holding pattern. For me that usually looks like revisiting the same thoughts or notes without adding anything new. That’s the signal to just start: imperfectly, incompletely, but actually start.

Constant Tweaking That Delays Finishing

The other end of the same problem. You’ve started. You’ve got something. And now you can’t stop adjusting it.

One more revision. One more mix tweak. Just fix that line before you move on.

Tweaking is seductive because it’s low risk compared to sharing something done. Finishing is a commitment. It invites evaluation. Tweaking lets you stay in the comfortable space of “almost there.”

But I’ve noticed something about creative work that gets tweaked indefinitely: at a certain point it stops getting better and just gets different. The thing you thought needed fixing wasn’t broken, it just felt exposed.

This pattern is well-documented. A meta-analysis of studies on perfectionism found a clear positive link between perfectionistic concerns (the fear-of-judgment side of perfectionism) and procrastination. In other words, the more we worry about the work being judged, the more we delay finishing it, often disguised as “just one more pass.” (Source: A Meta-analytic and Conceptual Update on the Associations Between Procrastination and Multidimensional Perfectionism, European Journal of Personality, 2017)

At some point, done has to be a decision, not a destination you arrive at. And “good enough to share” is a reasonable standard that “perfect” rarely meets.

Comparison That Drains the Room

This one is quieter but it does so much damage, a real killer. The quiet ones always do!

You hear someone else’s composition and it’s brilliant. You see what someone’s crafted art and it makes yours feel small. You open Instagram, spend ten minutes in someone else’s world, and come back to your own work with the energy gone.

Comparison isn’t always conscious. It’s just the background noise of being a creative person with access to everyone else’s finished, polished, best-foot-forward output.

The problem is you’re comparing their finished work to your in-progress work. It’s not a fair fight. Their rough drafts, their deleted tracks, their abandoned projects are invisible. Yours are right in front of you.

Research backs this up. An Instagram-based study found that ability-related social comparisons (the “look what they can do” kind) consistently lowered wellbeing more than opinion-based comparisons did. Creative work is almost always an ability comparison, which is part of why scrolling through other creators’ output can leave you feeling flat about your own. (Source: The Impact of Social Comparisons More Related to Ability vs. More Related to Opinion on Well-Being: An Instagram Study, Behavioral Sciences, 2023)

The practical answer is obvious: limit the inputs. Not permanently, not fearfully, but deliberately. When I’m in the middle of making something, I go quieter on other people’s output. Not because their work isn’t good, but because mine needs the space.

Simpler Habits, Better Output

The replacement habits that have made the most difference for me have all been boring in the best way.
- Start before you’re ready.
- Set a time limit and begin.
- Keep the tools accessible so the friction is low.
- Give the work a constraint so there are fewer decisions to navigate.
- End each session knowing what you’re starting with next time.
None of these are clever. But they remove the conditions where over-planning and endless tweaking and comparison tend to breed.

Creative output isn’t usually blocked by lack of inspiration. It’s blocked by the habits we’ve built around the work. And habits, unlike inspiration, are something you can actually change.

Thank you for reading this post. Please share your thoughts in the comment section below.
namaste
d
xox

If you enjoyed this post please support my writing by making a donation of any amount.

Sign up for my (ir)regular newsletter to keep up to date with my creative adventures, including special offers, and join me on Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Pinterest
16 May 2026
Is Your Creative Idea Worth Finishing? Here’s How to Decide
Alt: “How to Tell If a Creative Idea Is Worth Finishing (And When to Let It Go)”

Not every song I’ve started has needed to be finished. Some of them I was glad I didn’t. A few I wish I’d abandoned earlier and got some of that creative time back.

There’s a version of creative advice that says: always finish what you start. Push through. Finish the draft, finish the song, finish the painting. And yes, there is a good reason for that. Finishing things builds discipline and skill in a way that giving up repeatedly does not.

But I don’t think it’s the full picture.

Because some ideas aren’t worth finishing. Some are experiments that served their purpose. Some are warm-ups that taught you something and don’t need to go any further. And some, if you’re honest with yourself, were never quite right from the start.

The question is: how do you tell the difference?

Not Finishing Isn’t Always Giving Up

We tend to treat unfinished work as some sort of moral failure. Like if you abandon a project, you’ve let yourself down, your family, your country, your very human reason to be!

But abandonment and quitting aren’t the same thing when it comes to creativity and our art. Seth Godin, in The Dip, draws a useful distinction between the Dip and the Cul-de-Sac. The Dip is the hard stretch that separates people who push through from people who stop short of something genuinely worthwhile. You want to push through the Dip.

The Cul-de-Sac is different. It’s the road that leads nowhere. It looks like progress, it feels like effort, but no amount of pushing is going to get you where you want to go. The smart move is to recognise it early and stop.

Some creative ideas are Dips. They’re hard because they’re worth doing. Some are Cul-de-Sacs. They’re hard because they’re not going anywhere. Art should not be an impasse.

The problem is, when we’re in the middle of creating something, we often can’t tell which is which.

What to Look For Early

The earlier you evaluate, the less time and effort you lose. And there are a few things worth paying attention to before you’re too deep in.

Energy. Does the idea still pull at you? Not in a comfortable, familiar way… in the way where you find yourself thinking about it when you’re not working on it, ideas continue to flow even when you’re not at the desk, easel, or holding the guitar. A song that’s worth finishing tends to nag at you. An idea that’s run its course tends to just sit there.

Momentum. Are you making progress, even slow progress? Or are you stuck in the same place every time you come back to it? Genuine difficulty often feels like resistance with direction. A bad fit tends to feel like circular effort: lots of motion, same spot.

Honest resonance. If you played this for, or shared your art with, someone right now, how would you feel? Not “would it be good enough” but: does it say something true? Does it feel like yours?

Austin Kleon wrote about “relocating your darlings” rather than killing them. The idea that if a line or an element feels precious but doesn’t fit, you don’t have to scrap it. You move it somewhere it can breathe. That’s a useful reframe for half-finished ideas too: a piece that’s stalling might not be a dead end; it might just be in the wrong project. A melody may fit in another harmony, a character in a different plot or an image in a different composition.

Making the Call

There’s research that suggests we’re wired to stay in things longer than we should. Psychologists call it the sunk cost fallacy: the more we’ve already invested, the harder it is to stop, even when stopping is the right move. Time spent, effort made, the version of the piece we’ve imagined, all of these things make walking away feel like loss.

But time you put into a Cul-de-Sac is time you’re not putting into something that has genuine pull. And unfinished projects that have lost their energy don’t just sit quietly. They take up mental space. They create guilt. They crowd out the ideas that might actually want to go somewhere. They are the mountain pile obscuring your creative vision.

A few questions I’ve found useful:
- If I started this from scratch today, would I?
- Am I still curious about where this is going, or am I just trying to resolve it?
- Is the difficulty coming from the work being hard, or from the idea not quite working?
None of these questions will give you a definitive answer. But they’ll often give you a feeling. And that feeling is usually worth listening to.

Some ideas are finished when they’re done. Others are finished when they’ve taught you what they had to teach. Both are valid outcomes. The goal isn’t to finish everything. It’s to finish the things that deserve it.

Thank you for reading this post. Please share your thoughts in the comment section below.
namaste
d
xox

If you enjoyed this post please support my writing by making a donation of any amount.

Sign up for my (ir)regular newsletter to keep up to date with my creative adventures, including special offers, and join me on Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Pinterest
9 May 2026
What Years of Creating Taught Me About Discipline
Introduction

For a long time I thought creative discipline was something you did or didn’t have. The people who showed up every day and consistently created, they must have something I lacked. More willpower. More commitment. A stronger sense of purpose.

So I’d try to force it. Push harder. Tell myself this time would be different. And for a while it would be. Then it wouldn’t.

What I’ve learned, slowly and not without a fair amount of failed attempts, is that discipline isn’t about force at all. The people who seem most disciplined aren’t necessarily trying harder than everyone else. They’ve just built better structures around themselves. And those structures, those creative practices, do the heavy lifting that willpower, or certainly my willpower, can’t sustain on its own.

Willpower fades. Systems don’t.

The research on willpower is pretty humbling. The American Psychological Association summarises it well: self-control draws on a limited mental resource that depletes through use. Every decision you make, every temptation you resist, every moment you push through resistance costs something. And the tank runs dry.

What’s more interesting is what the research says about people who seem highly disciplined. They don’t have stronger willpower. They’ve structured their lives to need it less. They’ve removed friction, built routines, and designed environments that make the right behaviour easier and the wrong behaviour harder. They’ve taken the decision out of it. (Source: What You Need to Know About Willpower, American Psychological Association)

This was a significant shift for me. Discipline stopped being about trying harder and started being about designing better.

Small commitments, consistently kept, build more than grand intentions

One of the most useful things I’ve picked up over years of creative work is that small consistent commitments beat big ambitious ones almost every time.

A daily creative session of twenty minutes that actually happens is worth infinitely more than an hour-long session you keep intending to have. The small commitment is achievable. You keep it. You build evidence that you’re someone who shows up. That evidence compounds.

BJ Fogg’s research at Stanford backs this up. His Behavior Design work shows that motivation is the least reliable factor in building lasting behaviour. Instead, he advocates for making habits so small and easy that they don’t require motivation at all. The habit gains its own momentum once it exists. The size of the commitment is less important than the consistency of it. (Source: Tiny Habits, BJ Fogg, Stanford Behavior Design Lab)

Environment matters more than intention

Here’s something that took me longer to really absorb: your environment shapes your behaviour more than your intentions do.

If your creative tools are put away, you’ll procrastinate more. If your notebook is on your desk, you’ll pick it up. If your guitar is in its case in the corner, it’ll stay there. If it’s on a stand in the room, you’ll play it. My guitar is within touching distance of my desk as I am typing this!

James Clear puts this plainly: “You do not rise to the level of your goals, you fall to the level of your systems.” And the environment is a core part of that system. Making the thing you want to do obvious and easy, and making the distractions less visible and less convenient, is one of the most effective forms of discipline there is. Not because you’re forcing yourself. Because you’ve designed your space to support the habit rather than compete with it. (Source: Atomic Habits, James Clear)

Discipline feels lighter over time

The other thing worth saying is this: it does get easier.

Not because you develop an iron will. But because the habits become automatic. The decision to sit down and work stops being a decision you have to make each time. It’s just what you do at that time in that place. The friction disappears.

What felt like discipline at the start, showing up, starting, keeping going, starts to feel less like effort and more like rhythm. And rhythm, once you have it, tends to sustain itself.

Practical takeaway

If you’re trying to build more discipline in your creative practice:
- Look at your structure before you look at your effort. Where are the friction points? Where do you reliably stop?
- Make one small commitment you can keep consistently. Smaller than you think you need.
- Change something in your environment that makes the habit easier to start.
Discipline isn’t a character trait. It’s something you build, one small decision at a time, in a structure that supports you rather than fights you.

Thank you for reading this post. Please share your thoughts in the comment section below.
namaste
d
xox

If you enjoyed this post please support my writing by making a donation of any amount.

Sign up for my (ir)regular newsletter to keep up to date with my creative adventures, including special offers, and join me on Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Pinterest
3 May 2026
Why Creative Constraints Make You More Productive (and More Creative)

Constraints simplify decisions, speed up creation and explore unique solutions

Introduction

Most of us assume that more freedom equals more creativity. Remove the limits, open up the options, give yourself room to explore. It sounds right.

But spend any time actually making things and you start to notice something strange. The projects with the most open briefs are often the hardest to finish, or even start. The ones with tight constraints, a fixed tempo, a word count, a single instrument, a limited palette, tend to move faster and sometimes come out better.

This isn’t a coincidence. There’s a lot of evidence, both from research and from centuries of creative practice – and no I’m not that old, I’m talking about other creatives – that constraints don’t hinder creativity. They focus it.

Fewer choices, less overwhelm

There’s a well-documented psychological phenomenon sometimes called decision fatigue. The more choices you have to make, the more mentally draining each one becomes. Given too many options, people either freeze up or make worse decisions than they would with fewer.

Barry Schwartz laid this out clearly in his book The Paradox of Choice, and it applies directly to creative work. When you sit down with no constraints at all, every decision is open. What tempo? What key? What length? What tone? What structure? Each choice requires mental energy. Multiply that across a whole project and you’ve spent most of your creative energy just navigating options before you’ve made anything.

A constraint removes a category of decisions entirely. Pick a tempo and stick to it. Write in a fixed structure. Limit yourself to three colours. Suddenly you’re making the work, not managing the options. (Source: The Paradox of Choice, Barry Schwartz, TED Talk)

Constraints force focus and push you toward new solutions

There’s a deeper creative benefit too. When you remove the easy paths, you have to find different ones.

A peer-reviewed meta-analysis of 145 studies on creativity found that moderate constraints consistently boost creative output, both in individuals and teams. The reason: a limit is perceived as a challenge rather than a barrier, which increases basic motivation and pushes people toward more original solutions. Total freedom, by contrast, tends toward the familiar. When anything is possible, we tend to reach for what we already know. (Source: Creativity and Innovation Under Constraints, Journal of Management, 2019)

You can see this in creative history. Monet’s decision to paint light rather than line pushed art toward impressionism. Stravinsky famously wrote: “The more constraints one imposes, the more one frees oneself.” These weren’t people working around limits. They were using limits as a creative engine.

Temporary constraints work best

The good news is you don’t have to impose permanent rules on your creative work. A constraint is most useful as a temporary tool, something you pick up for a session or a project and put down when it’s done its job.

Try giving yourself one rule for your next creative session. Write only in the second person. Record using only one microphone. Finish a piece in under an hour. Use only three chords.

The constraint doesn’t have to be logical or even particularly meaningful. Its job isn’t to make the work better by being a good rule. Its job is to reduce the decision space and get you moving.

And, once you’re moving, the constraint has done its work. You can keep it or drop it.

Practical takeaway

Next time you’re stuck or overwhelmed at the start of a project, don’t try to solve it by opening up more options. Try closing some down.

Pick one constraint. It doesn’t matter much what it is. Apply it for the session and see what happens.

You might be surprised how quickly a limit turns into momentum.

Thank you for reading this post. Please share your thoughts in the comment section below.
namaste
d
xox

If you enjoyed this post please support my writing by making a donation of any amount.

Sign up for my (ir)regular newsletter to keep up to date with my creative adventures, including special offers, and join me on Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Pinterest

28 April 2026