Something that might be interesting to some is that when I'm doing normal sketching, I don't think in terms of drawing a thing or a single form. Usually I've got a short moment that I'm thinking about, sometimes it's much more elaborate and becomes a fully fleshed character as I think of it. That animation from the last post is kind of a rough version of how I see a sketch. I'm not terribly interested in drawing say, a horse. I am interested in drawing something that feels like a horse, and you can't do that with a static image in mind. If I draw a horse I am thinking about what it might feel like to be a horse, what might it's thoughts be, and so how that translates into it's motion. If I can sense my own motion in relation to it's motion I can get something down that feels good. It's definately a way of anthromorphizing whatever subject I am trying to draw. Part of the reason to do this is that if you draw a very realistic image, but don't add humanity into it, people note that it's technically good, but don't feel anything for it. We have great difficulty seperating ourselves from ourselves when evaluating the world. Which, overall is a good thing, but does lead to conflicts of interest. In art, this seems to be technical vs emotional conflicts. Most people lean towards one or the other. I think the worst art is poorly done technical pieces. It's got no heart, and it doesn't fullfill it's technical lean. The really good artists can do both, forming wonderful whole sensations. I'd be pretty proud if I could capture an image like that some day.