I really admire the disciplined painters who can create super-realistic objects that come alive
on the canvas, but I don't think that's what I want to get out of it. I paint in front of the TV often, the way I
used to snack in front of the TV, the way some people knit or crochet. Whatever I'm watching, whatever I'm
thinking about, goes into the picture in some way. Maybe gaining technical skills would change that. 
Ahh. I think you're safe. If I understand correctly, super-realism can only be achieved by getting into the habit of closely observing various actual real subjects
quite apart from the slog of developing some technical skills.
I wouldn't bother. It's a heckova slog, and if you're anything like me, you'll never, ever have sufficient draughtsmanship for super-realism anyway. A Van Gogh vase is about as near as I can come to that
, cos my hands have too much of a mind of their own. That said, it would be awsomely cool to be Van Gogh...unless I actually was Van Gogh of course, in which case I'd be finding that nobody appreciated me, and I'd be going nuts and cutting my ear off and all that, and thinking how awasomely cool it would be to be somebody else.
Meh. Let's just settle for being Walkie and Weeble , huh?
[EDIT: yeah, i put Van Goph, twice over. Just caught myself and corrected. Heck, I must have gophers on the brain , huh?
]
