When I first started making art, I thought I already understood what research was. I had always been curious. I read, observed, experimented, visited exhibitions, looked for references, and tried to understand the work of artists I admired. Research was already part of my creative process, even if I didn’t consciously think about it.

Then I went to art school.

I expected to learn techniques. I thought I would improve my photography, develop my visual language, and learn how to build stronger projects. I did. But the most important lesson had nothing to do with technique.

It was understanding what research really means.

I realised that research isn’t something you do before making art. It isn’t a checklist you complete before starting a project. Research is a way of thinking.

It’s following a question even when you don’t know where it will lead. It’s allowing philosophy to influence photography, architecture to influence jewellery, music to influence images, and conversations to become ideas. It’s making connections between things that, at first, don’t seem connected at all.

The funny thing is that art school didn’t make me curious. I already was. What it gave me was a framework for something I had been doing instinctively for years. It helped me understand that curiosity isn’t just a personality trait. It’s a discipline. It’s something you can cultivate, challenge and deepen for the rest of your life.

Since then, I’ve stopped thinking of research as the beginning of the creative process. For me, research is the creative process. Every book I read, every place I visit, every person I meet and every experience I live quietly becomes part of it.

Maybe that’s why I never feel like I’m “not making art.” Even on the days when I don’t create anything, I’m still researching. I’m still learning. I’m still collecting pieces of the world that, one day, might become something completely different.