Nudes deserve a different category than the paintings of Females you'll find elsewhere in this section.  Nudes are females without their clothes on. Well, that's not entirely true. Nudes also could be males without their clothing on. But somehow--for reasons my wife Rose could best explain--I've always enjoyed drawing nude females more than nude males. I guess it's because females have smoother curves, right? Yeah, that's it: The curves. It's a linear exercise.

Nude Women are also different from what fellow author, runner and raconteur John Parker refers to as Nekkid Women. That's a Southern term. John is from Tallahassee. Nudes are women without clothes on. Nekkid Women, says John, are women without clothes on, who are looking for trouble.

None of the women pictured below are looking for trouble. They were models in a painting class. In fact, they even had a few items of clothing on when I painted them. To understand how they lost their clothes, you have to understand how I sketch. Using a pen or pencil, I usually sketch a series of quick lines to define the outline of the figure. Then I add details and sometimes color. The model is only going to hold any pose for a limited time, so you need to work fast. In the cases below, after doing the preliminary lines, I liked what I saw and decided to forget about "finishing" the drawings by adding more details (i.e., clothing). Maybe I was saving myself work. So the result is what might be termed a faux nude--although that term seems somewhat indecent.

One more comment before I let you look at the pictures. (Okay, I know, you've already looked at the pictures!) I sometimes do the extra work and add the clothing. I captured one of the models below in a reclining pose in which I did include the shorts and halter top she wore. To do otherwise would have been indecent, since I was sketching looking toward her feet. It was a small black and white sketch, but I had it elegantly framed with a gray mat and black border before placing it in an exhibit of my work in Basil's Restaurant in Michigan City. One of my friends expressed an interest in buying the picture, but at the end of the exhibit I realized that it was gone. Somebody had stolen it! I guess that's the height of fame for an artist: to have someone like your work so much that he's willing to go to jail to acquire it. (Undoubtedly he liked it as a linear exercise.)

RECLINING NUDE 1: Acrylic on canvas. 48 inches by 30 inches; wraparound canvas with art (including artist's signature) continuing around the edge. This is the larger, acrylic version of the smaller watercolor that you see below.  $250

RECLINING NUDE 2: Black ink with watercolor. 14 inches by 10 inches (estimated). Framed with glass. This is the smaller version that preceded the acrylic painting above. It is hanging in our condo in Ponte Vedra Beach.  $250

RECLINING NUDE 3: Black ink with watercolor. 14 inches by 10 inches. Framed with glass. This is the same model, same pose, from a slightly different angle. Here's the point I made above about why not to add clothing: This drawing succeeds, because of the simplicity of its line. Would adding clothing make it a better drawing? As for the price, "Wait a minute!" you say. "Why is this drawing priced higher than the first work when it not only is smaller, but it's not a painting" (Paintings usually command higher prices.) Simple. It's a better work of art.  $450

TWO OR MORE OF THE ABOVE WORKS: I don't know how much I'll charge you. Probably 20 percent off the combined prices. Let's negotiate.