The ability to draw; the ability to animate; the ability to communicate. Thousands of years ago, written language developed from pictographs into script with precise linguistic meaning, but what meaning remained in the leftover pictorial aspect? Was pictorial depiction only useful as a proto-script to develop writing, and now that we have writing drawing is rendered defunct? This seems a bit hasty, as drawing has universally persisted alongside language and surely images fill our dreams, ignite life where words cannot. If the written language stands on the shoulders of the spoken, perhaps drawing stands atop our sense of sight. But in a linguistic era, what use does sight have that can show us what drawing is good for?

I used to stare at paintings in museums and get very little out of them: I couldn't appreciate them at all until I started consistently drawing. A year ago I went to an art museum and it was an epiphany! Like the world opened up! Pictures became fascinating, personable and even impressive. I didn't glaze right past them, stand, stare and forget. I could engage! So as far as I know, you need to do art to understand art. To me drawing is the language of drawing, and pictures are just a record of what you said. It's a fun language, and it gets to the heart of creation much more simply than writing can. Math, music, drawing: people've made some good things for the soul.

Might be worth noting that although I struggled with making sense of museum art, I never struggled to appreciate anime/manga. From elementary school on up I could admire those drawings and animations, no problem. Wonder why. I think the Japanese and Europeans did something really special with cartooning.

Is it strange if each step seems to prolong the trip and not hasten it towards it's end? Ah, wayward wandering–I'll take a map please!