Occasionally I put the sharp end of a pencil on a piece of paper and move it about wildly in the hopes that I will produce something that at least vaguely resembles some sort of life form. Okay, that's an exaggeration, but I haven't had any visual arts training since middle school art class (meaning that for practical purposes I haven't had any at all) and have never, as far as I can recall, read any of those "how-to-draw" books. In other words, I have no idea what I'm doing. So be nice.
I'm curious as to what kinda pencils you use? Also, do you always draw nature/wild life? Just judging on our conversation previously about this, I wonder if this is what you focus on.
I like 'em a lot.
Um, Dixon Ticonderoga No. 2's.
And wildlife/nature is my primary focus, yes. At least, wildlife art is the only kind I take the creation of seriously.
Actually, thinking about it, I find it sort of funny that people think of it as wildlife being the "only" thing I draw (not that that's what you meant—I'm not offended, anyway). As I see it, it is the artists who only draw humans who are limiting themselves. That's their choice, and they're welcome to it, but humans are just one species out of millions of animal species, and billions of species of life in general—each just as alive as any human. The human form, in my view, does not have a monopoly on aesthetic worth at even the highest levels of art. Only human arrogance says otherwise.
I'm mildly curious--which do you all prefer: the raw drawings, like the first ones, or somewhat cleaned up, like the last one? Not that I'm going to change based on what you all say--I've decided to use the raw work as the final form, and I believe the most important thing for an artist to do is create what they like.
I believe there is more beauty in nature than in all the art museums in the world. So I consider it an interesting challenge to try to capture the beauty that is present in creatures that others find repulsive, or even frightening.