Vyse

Alright, I think I got it. Thank you again for taking your time to explain this in such detail.

Hi, thanks again for the clarification. So the "secret" why this seemed like it changed based on context is actually the scope at which we draw? In other words, we should only try to add texture, when the textural details are large enough to be perceived at the distance we are drawing the object from. If we are too far away, the details become so small that they will not matter for describing the shape anymore since we would not perceive them anyway, even if we looked at the actual object from the same distance?

So in short, if the details the texture would provide become too small from the perspective we are drawing from, we might as well not draw them at all, not even as texture, to avoid cluttering the image with visual detail?

(And yes, drawing only large cast shadows you would see from far away does not count as that does not give us relevant information about the structure of the things we draw.)

Hi ThatOneMushroomGuy, thank you very much for your feedback. I understand most of what you told me, but I have to ask about the texture points again since it somewhat feels like this is not really addressed properly in the lectures. My main question is: What are we supposed to draw? It feels like every exercise shifts what the focus of texture should be. The first sausage exercise wants us to draw shade and how it lands on other forms to describe them. That results in large areas of shadow, but there it is "correct" to do so. Now you pointed out this approach is incorrect because it does not describe form. Now I have to wonder how that would apply to most flowerss given that they have mostly smooth petals and small stems that can hardly show such form changes by adding texture. In fact the demo videos that show how to apply texture seem to be outlining details which I understand is also wrong.

So looking back at the Edelweiss drawing: How could I have applied texture correctly? Could I even have done it "correctly" with this definition? There is not much form that can be described with texture other than the roundness of the stem so what are we supposed to do in this instance? Not use texture at all? Only draw a large image of the blossom? But if i did that, the petals would also be mostly smooth so I would end up with large shadow areas again.

Hey there, sorry for taking so long to reply again. You seem like you are getting there, allthough the last corner (the one that would normally be hidden from view) is often still a bit problematic. Nonetheless I have marked the lesson as complete in case nobody else has done that yet (i sure hope somebody else did D:).

I agree, the exercise does provide value once it is clear what we are supposed to be doing. To get to that point you currently need to do a lot of research of your own and ask around in the respective discord channel (where they had a lot better examples that explained the concept between outline, texture mixtures of both and what we are supposed to draw out of all this). The exercise is pretty unique so it is difficult to find other resources for it. I did find that some mangas make use of the concept a lot after I was aware of it, too.

Using student work is a good idea if there is not enough time for Uncomfortable to create new examples. Asking the mods of the discord channels for the examples they provide might be helpful as well. Having a simpler exercise where you apply the concept to simple geometric shapes first, rather than jumping to the sausage dissection exercise directly might be helpful as well. To make an anlogy to lesson 1 again: Let people do the 1, 2 and 3 point perspective exercises first before you throw the spehere of rotated boxes at them.

My point is that just investing a little bit of effort here may save qutie a few people from a lot of headache in the future and maybe even from quitting at lesson 2. (Or from not even starting)

So after finishing this exercise now and then taking a longer break due to work related reasons, I am now back, working on lesson 3. Since texture is also a topic there and I wanted to read up on some of the things that were explained, I returned and stumbled over this post and your reply. First of all, thank you for taking your time to reply to my rambling back there. I was not in a good place mentally and I guess that showed in the way I phrased this post.

Allthough I am in a better state of mind right now however, I do wish to point out that my main frustration was not that the result did not look good at the end but rather that I never felt like I understood what I was supposed to be doing in the first place. I am fine with an ugly result. I am fine with not having the full picture, too. (I did not fully grasp perspective but I did the rotated boxes exercise nonetheless and it was even fun) What really got to me though, was the way this exercise is presented. As I mentioned, nothing seems to match up. The text, the pictures and the videos all seem to be trying to convey different ideas. There is also no build-up to the concept like in lesson 1 and the exercise introduces multiple new concepts at once. Having at least one or two "correct" examples that are clearly marked as such so it becomes clearer what we are even supposed to strive for would be very helpful. It is a bit like lesson 1 would never really explain perspective or boxes and jumped straight into "Do the rotated boxes exercise and don't feel bad if it turns out ugly. Here are pictures that all convey more or less unrelated topics to help you." Lesson 1 gives you a map and a clear goal, then sets you on a very difficult path to get there. Lesson 2 just says "go over there, no there, no uhm… You know what? Just wander through this marshland somehow. It is difficult, you will probably drown, but don't let that discourage you."

Having a clear goal and no idea how to get there is fine and can be motivating. Having a clear way to go without understanding where it leads can also give valuable insights. Having no clear goal and no clear way to go is what it means to be lost and that is how I felt while doing this exercise.

I understand that Comfy is busy and that this course is free. However, leaving the lesson in this state claiming there is a revamp of everything coming that will be uploaded once everything is perfect rather than providing a few clearly marked correct examples of what we are supposed to be doing in the lesson as it is right now, seems a lot like the kind of perfectionism that we are supposed not to strive for in this lesson. This whole thing may have gotten to me more than others for various reasons, not the least of which being that I was under a lot of stress from work back then. I would still humbly suggest, that a few minor tweaks and examples that match the instructions might prevent a lot of unnecessary headache early on in the course.

As explained on discord the lines that are supposed to converge only partially do so. Instead of all four lines of a set of parallel lines/edges, at best two converge to the same vanishing point in most of your boxes. Maybe take another look at the exercise description (or use the text to voice function at the top of the page to have it read to you) and consider the things I pointed out regarding which lines are supposed to converge. Try doing thirty or so more with that knowledge and then we can check again for improvement.

I am currently struggling with exactly the same problems as you describe. I have banged my head against this one exercise longer than the 250 box challenge now, felt like I was stupid, lost all motivation and am now dreading to pick up the pen to continue working on this course because it means I have to return to this texture stuff. The only reason I have not quit yet is that I set up multiple external systems like commitment devices that make me continue Allthough i procrastinate on this exercise as much as I can. I have developed an actual headache multiple times while trying to work on this and drawing feels like a punishment by now. I know all the „it‘s not supposed to look nice“ talk and the other advice, but as you pointed out, we know we CAN do this if we put the effort in and not putting in that effort feels like we are not doing it right. With the amount of struggle and absolute misery this exercise causes for me and apparently others, I want to point out three things about it, that massively bother me beyond that I feel too stupid to do the exercise by now:

1. the instruction page mentions that there are problems with this exercise and lists a few things to keep in mind. The first of which is „do not outline your form“. Yet all the examples given below seem to outline the forms. So does the video. The video also shows gradiation on the sausage which none of the example results in the description does and so on and so forth. So that is the first problem For me: there is no clear target or example to show what to actually strive for. Every example given (written, picture, video, previous analysis exercise) tells us different, contradicting things about what to to. Why in the name of god do you leave the exercise in this state if you know it causes problems? Please be aware that you are actively causing suffering over extended periods of time with this (Weeks to months for some people) for something that seems like you want people to „just try out“ on the side. I am sure if someone is new to drawing that is what they will do. I was stupid enough to start and quit learning how to draw multiple times now however and got stuck in a place where I know what would be „correct“ and that I could get there, but doing so feels like torture by now.

2. As you mentioned, the feedback on these exercises is a vague „focus on cast shadows and shilouettes“ but what that actually implies is that you draw the shadows without seeing/drawing the shapes first. Not only that but you have to draw them along a curved surface and imagine how the shapes you don‘t see affect the shadows. If one form casts a shadow onto another form, that shadow gets distorted or blocked from view entirely. That is not an easy concept to grasp, especially not for someone just starting out. You have to imagine the entire geometry in your head beforehand to do that (or analyse the texture to death, draw it a million times and gain enough understanding of the shape to improvise shapes of light and shadow as you go. Usually people draw the actual shape a lot for that though.) What is the point of hitting people over the head with so many new concepts at once, this early in the course? Which leads me to 3

3. What is the point of having this exercise in here this early? All lessons carefully introduce one concept after another (draw straight lines, circles, 1 point, two point and three point perspective, etc) and gives you many exercises to solidify this knowledge. Then you get to texture and you are suddenly supposed to understand observational drawing, light and shadow, microstructure, form casting shadows on other forms on curved surfaces and a completely new technique to render something (cast shadows only). Why do you do this in lesson 2? When I first found drawabox years ago, this exercise is what always stopped me from attempting it myself. This makes it seem like the difficulty jumps like it has seen a tarantula spider all of a sudden and in my opinion is the main reason why people either never start drawabox or quit once they hit this exercise. For what exactly? Later in lesson three you begin to introduce this concept with the bumps on the cactus and it feels way more organic and in tune with the difficulty level.

This is NOT the same as lesson 1 with the rotated boxes that form a sphere. That is challenging, yes, but it uses the concepts introduced before and presents them to us in a challenging way. This texture exercise introduces several new concepts at once AND presents them in a mind bogglingly challenging way. If you want to keep this, why do you not introduce these concepts one at a time like before? The way it is, there is no point to this other than „produce crap results and feel miserable while doing so potentially for months“. This does not get me thinking about texture, this gets me thinking about quitting drawing for good but not before poking out my eyes with the pen first to prevent me from ever trying something so stupid ever again.

So in summary: Even for what it is supposed to be (get us to think about texture) I think this is confusingly described, introduces way too many concepts at once and hits students over the head way too early. Say „only draw to the best of your ability“ all you want that doesn’t make anything better because that is what I am trying right now. It is horrible and nothing killed the joy in drawing for me more than this exercise.

Ohhhhh that was so fast! Thank you very much for the in-depth feedback. I‘ll try my best to keep what you said in mind. I initially tried to use line weight but didn‘t see any other way than drawing some edges twice which often resulted in lines that were slightly off and made everything look messy. Is that the right way to approach line weight in this exercise and it also just takes practice to get right? I would usually think that pen pressure might be a solution but given the drawing medium and requirements of drawabox the effects that can be achieved with this are rather minimal. Is there something I am missing?

Either way, thank you very much. These critiques really help a lot.

Wow, looking at these I struggle to come up with any criticism except that your line quality descends into very scribbly lines during the texture exercises. Also the arrows to not consistently get thinner towards the „back“ and instead vary in width.

The hatching on the intersecting boxes is a bit much and somewhat distracts from the actual focus of the exercise but that is nitpicking.

I am not sure about how „correct“ the intersections are but the pictures look good to me.

Overall the only thing I’d really suggest is to keep using the same confident lines in your textures that you use for the other exercises. As uncomfortable pointed out in one of the videos: „once you are about to scribble, stop.“

Allthough i would not call your lines random, you could achieve a better effect with clearer lines.