Uncomfortable

Joined 3 years ago

525875 Reputation

uncomfortable's Sketchbook

  • Sharing the Knowledge
    0 users agree
    11:12 PM, Tuesday September 27th 2022

    Starting with your arrows, you're doing a pretty good job here of drawing them with confidence - aside from a touch of hesitation here and there. It shows that you are certainly able to draw these with a focus on how they move fluidly through the world, but that you do need to keep an eye on how closely you're adhering to the principles of markmaking, as you are prone to slipping back and ending up with slightly wobblier lines, especially towards the bottom of the page, if you lose focus.

    Both in terms of the benefits of the confidence, and the issues relating to hesitating - carry over into your leaves. As such, you're capturing to a point how they sit statically in 3D space as well as how they move through the space they occupy, although this can be improved. Remember - the flow line itself has a job to do. It defines both how long the given leaf structure will be, as well as how it actually moves through the world. If it's drawn without consideration to fluidity, then it will come out feeling flat. If however you draw it while thinking about it as a representation of force and movement, then it will flow more smoothly and confidently, capturing not only how the leaf sits there in three dimensions, but also how it actually moves from moment to moment.

    When it comes to adding more complexity, I did notice a few issues:

    • In regards to more basic edge detail, just be sure to give yourself more time in the execution of each stroke. You want each addition to seamlessly rise off the existing edge, and return to it, to give the impression of it being an extension of that 3D structure's silhouette. Small overshoots, or gaps, will break that illusion and remind the viewer that what they're looking at is just lines on a flat page.

    • For this one, you seemed to be undecided in terms of how you wanted to tackle it - whether you wanted to build it out as a complex leaf structure (where we create the basic footprint, and then build up flow lines within it and then construct leaf structures around those, finally merging them together at the end as demonstrated here and here, or if you wanted to approach it as edge detail by cutting back into the basic silhouette as shown here. Given that you did draw the flow lines (although they should be extending right to the perimeter of the basic silhouette, so as to maintain tight, specific relationships between the stages of construction), you then pivoted back to the other approach, leaving yourself somewhere in the middle. If you lay down flow lines, you should be constructing leaf structures around them, then merging them together at the end - again, as shown here.

    As a whole, be sure to execute your marks with more confidence, and give the markmaking process for your edge detail more time.

    Continuing onto your branches, I'm steadily seeing that hesitation increase, and more signs that you may be drawing the ellipses at least from your wrist. These issues, pertaining to things from Lesson 1, are very important, as they can serve to hinder us as we move into more complex topics. For all these structural marks, it's critical that you:

    • Draw using your whole arm, from the shoulder, not from your wrist.

    • Use the ghosting method to ensure that you're not trying to do everything at once, but rather break the process up across the planning, preparation, and execution stages - ultimately committing yourself and pushing through regardless of your fears of making a mistake as soon as that pen touches the page. It's the planning phase that receives the bulk of your time.

    As far as the execution of the exercise itself, just a couple things:

    • Be sure to draw through your ellipses two full times before lifting your pen - you often stop under 2x, sometimes at 1.5, which shows that you understand that you should be doing the full 2 turns, but that you're not entirely aware of the actions you're taking. This is not an uncommon issue with students but something you need to act on and address.

    • Remember that the degree of the ellipses should be shifting wider as discussed in the Lesson 1 ellipses video. Right now you're keeping them all at the same general width/degree.

    • Be sure to have each edge segment extend fully halfway to the next ellipse - you frequently fall a little short.

    Moving onto your plant constructions, I'm going to keep this part brief, as I feel the points I've called out already touch upon the major issues we want to be addressing. For now, I'm just going to call out one remaining concern.

    When you finish your construction and push into the "detail" phase of things, it seems that your priority shifts mainly to one of decoration. That is, you pull information directly from observation from your reference and try to apply it to your drawing with a focus on making it as visually pleasing and interesting as you can manage. Unfortunately decoration is not the goal we're after, as it's not a particularly clear one. There's no specific point, after all, where one has added "enough" decoration.

    What we're doing in this course can be broken into two distinct sections - construction and texture - and they both focus on the same concept. With construction we're communicating to the viewer what they need to know to understand how they might manipulate this object with their hands, were it in front of them. With texture, we're communicating to the viewer what they need to know to understand what it'd feel like to run their fingers over the object's various surfaces. Both of these focus on communicating three dimensional information. Both sections have specific jobs to accomplish, and none of it has to do with making the drawing look nice.

    Instead of focusing on decoration, what we draw here comes down to what is actually physically present in our construction, just on a smaller scale. As discussed back in Lesson 2's texture section, we focus on each individual textural form, focusing on them one at a time and using the information present in the reference image to help identify and understand how every such textural form sits in 3D space, and how it relates within that space to its neighbours. Once we understand how the textural form sits in the world, we then design the appropriate shadow shape that it would cast on its surroundings. The shadow shape is important, because it's that specific shape which helps define the relationship between the form casting it, and the surface receiving it.

    As a result of this approach, you'll find yourself thinking less about excuses to add more ink, and instead you'll be working in the opposite - trying to get the information across while putting as little ink down as is strictly needed, and using those implicit markmaking techniques from Lesson 2 to help you with that.

    While you'll want to review the Lesson 2 texture material in general, here are two important areas to focus on:

    You'll find your revisions assigned below.

    Next Steps:

    These revisions will include exercises that aren't from this lesson, but that I feel should help you get in the swing of drawing more confidently.

    • 1 page of the tables of ellipses exercise from Lesson 1

    • 1 page of organic forms with contour ellipses

    • 1 page of leaves

    • 1 page of branches

    • 4 pages of plant constructions

    When finished, reply to this critique with your revisions.
    0 users agree
    10:52 PM, Tuesday September 27th 2022

    Starting with your arrows, you've done a very good job of executing your linework here with a great deal of confidence, which plays an important role in conveying how these structures move fluidly through the world. This carries over quite well into your leaves exercise as well, where you're capturing both how these sit statically in 3D space, and how they move through the space they occupy.

    When it comes to building upon the basic leaf structures, I can see that you've experimented with edge detail, although honestly you didn't really put as much time into each individual little edge detail mark as you could have - likely, as is not by any means uncommon with students, deciding that because they were smaller, they could get away with less time being invested in them. Unfortunately, you are going to have to get used to investing as much time as each mark requires - on an individual basis - allowing the task at hand to determine how long they should take, rather than your own preconceptions.

    So for example, if we look here, we can see that your edge detail marks cut right across the edge, overshooting it, rather than seamlessly flowing out of and back into the existing edge. As a result, we do not get the impression that we're changing the 3D structure of the object, but rather that we're looking at a collection of lines on a flat page.

    Remember - what we're doing here is not putting down a rough sketch to use as a guide. We are effectively introducing a structure to the world, as though it were a simple leaf shape cut out of a piece of paper, and as we add edge detail to it or build up its structure, we are actively making physical changes to that existing form. If we want to add spikes to its edge, we're physically adding more pieces of paper to it. If we want to create a wobbly edge, we are physically drooping and lifting sections of its perimeter in 3D space. And if we want to cut into its silhouette, then the lines we're drawing represent the paths a pair of scissors would follow to cut it out, as shown here.

    Continuing onto your branches, I do have a few notable concerns here:

    • This exercise's main focus is on how we employ our edges - laying them out such that they overlap in a particular way to achieve a smoother, more seamless transition from one segment to the next. I can see you doing this, but in varying ways - sometimes you'll only extend slightly beyond the previous ellipse, instead of fully halfway as noted in the instructions. In other cases, it seems like you deviate more from the specific approach requested, and instead have a single edge segment extending further than it should, instead of going from one ellipse, past the second, and stopping halfway to the third. You will likely want to review these instructions more closely.

    • In most of these - though admittedly not all - your ellipses appear to be maintaining roughly the same general degree. Don't forget - as noted in the Lesson 1 ellipses video, when sampling cross-sectional slices along the length of a cylinder, they're going to steadily get wider as we slide further away from the viewer. The fact that these branches are flexible tubes does also need to be taken into consideration (as the tube comes to face us head-on, the degree gets wider even if it's coming closer to the viewer) but farther = wider is a good rule of thumb to work from.

    Before I continue, I want to take a moment to point out that the assigned homework here included one page of leaves and one page of branches, and that you've submitted more than that - along with some pages that appeared to mix the leaves exercise with your plater plant constructions. Submit only what is requested, as outlined here in Lesson 0, and note that doing more work, but demonstrating signs that you didn't necessarily take as much time as you should have on each attempt, is actually a common problem amongst students. It trains our brains to think that it's more important that we produce things quickly and in greater volume - when in fact first and foremost doing the work to the best of our current ability, even in a more limited quantity, is far more effective, at least for what we're doing here.

    Additionally, sticking to what's assigned and keeping the different parts separated from one another simply does a world of good in helping me critique your work more efficiently.

    Looking at your plant constructions, I can see a lot of clear signs that you have the capacity to do an excellent job - although your tendency towards rushing does hold you back from achieving what you're capable of. The mistakes I'll note below aren't grievous, or dire, but they speak to an overall pattern that you will want to take effort to address.

    • Constructional drawing is all about breaking the process up into steps, so we can make decisions one at a time, instead of all at once. This depends heavily on maintaining tight, specific relationships between those stages so that the decisions we make previously are respected and reinforced, rather than contradicted and undermined. So, for example, if you start out a flower with an ellipse to defined how far out each petal will extend from the center, it's important that the subsequent flow lines you draw stop right at the perimeter of that ellipse, and in turn that the petal itself stops right at the end of its flow line - not overshooting the ellipse's perimeter, or leaving an arbitrary gap between the end of the flow line and the tip of its petal.

    • When dealing with the edge detail in these plant constructions you're very prone to zigzagging edge detail back and forth as explained here, which both leads to weaker relationships between the phases of construction, as well as breaks one of the three principles of markmaking from Lesson 1.

    • On the potted plant on this page, I can see that when you're getting into textural detail, you're allowing yourself to drift as well into adding form shading to your construction. Note that as discussed here, form shading should not be playing a role in our drawings throughout this course.

    • Also in relation to that same drawing, I noticed that you were attempting to add line weight somewhat arbitrarily. Try to limit its use as explained here, so as to avoid having to trace or chicken-scratch back over long lengths of existing linework.

    • This one's not a mistake - but in regards to how you handled the sweet peppers on this page (which for the purposes of this lesson is totally fine, and even well done), I recommend you read through these notes. Basically, it'll be a mistake going forward, but isn't one in the context of hits lesson.

    Now, like I said before - you are showing clear potential, strong observational skills, and a good sense of form (albeit one that is not being leveraged as well as it could). The issue comes down to what the responsibilities of this course's students are. We do not ask for students to produce perfect work, nor do we ask for good work. We ask for them to invest as much time as they require into following the directions as closely as they can, and to spend as much time as they require constructing each form, drawing each shape, and executing each mark as they require to do so to the best of their current ability.

    While the prospect of a full redo did cross my mind - I have done so in the past, and have found that it provides students with the necessary shock earlier on in their progress to restructure their priorities and how they tackle their work - I will not be assigning that for you. At least, not yet. Instead, I'm going to assign some revisions below, and based on how you handle them, will decide what to do from there.

    Next Steps:

    Please submit the following:

    • 1 page of leaves

    • 1 page of branches

    • 4 pages of plant constructions

    When finished, reply to this critique with your revisions.
    0 users agree
    10:29 PM, Tuesday September 27th 2022

    Starting with your arrows, you've drawn them with a great deal of confidence, which helps a lot in establishing how the structure moves with a sense of fluidity. This carries over quite well to your leaves, where you're capturing not only how they sit statically in 3D space, but also how they move through the space they occupy.

    That said, while you're generally doing a good job of building up your edge detail in individual marks, added one at a time to represent each individual bump (and generally avoiding zigzagging edge detail back and forth or trying to capture more than one bit of detail with a single stroke), I am noticing that you could probably stand to invest a little more time into each individual stroke. It's not uncommon for students to feel that since they're tasked with drawing a lot of little marks, that those marks can perhaps be drawn a little more quickly, but that is not the case. Every mark we draw must be given as much time as it requires, so as to avoid little inconsistencies and issues like these which fail to create a cohesive extension of the existing silhouette, and instead read more as individual lines on a flat page.

    You're headed in the right direction, just need to give each of those marks more attention.

    Continuing onto your branches, I do have a few things to call out:

    • You need to be drawing through your ellipses two full times before lifting your pen, as discussed back in Lesson 1. This goes for all the ellipses we freehand throughout this course.

    • You're generally pretty close to having each edge extend fully halfway to the next ellipse, which is good. One thing that'll help you make better use of this exercise going forward however (though it will make the exercise a bit more difficult) is to use the last chunk of the previous segment as a runway, overlapping it directly before shooting off towards the next target, rather than drawing it where the previous segment ought to have been. You can see this approach applied here. In effect, it forces us to deal with our mistakes, so we can avoid them going forward.

    • Lastly, don't forget that as discussed back in the Lesson 1 ellipses video, the degree of your ellipses here should be shifting wider as we slide further away from the viewer along the length of the form. The turning of the form would also impact the degree of these cross-sectional slices, although farther = wider is a good starting point. It looks like you're generally trying to maintain a consistent degree throughout most of these, although there are a couple - like the far left of the page - that show a proper degree shift.

    Moving onto your plant constructions, there are two things that we must give each of our drawings throughout this course in order to get the most out of them. Those two things are space and time. Right now it appears that you are thinking ahead to how many drawings you'd like to fit on a given page. It certainly is admirable, as you clearly want to get more practice in, but in artificially limiting how much space you give a given drawing, you're limiting your brain's capacity for spatial reasoning, while also making it harder to engage your whole arm while drawing. The best approach to use here is to ensure that the first drawing on a given page is given as much room as it requires. Only when that drawing is done should we assess whether there is enough room for another. If there is, we should certainly add it, and reassess once again. If there isn't, it's perfectly okay to have just one drawing on a given page as long as it is making full use of the space available to it.

    As far as the actual constructions themselves go, you are by and large doing pretty well. There are however a few quick points I want to call to your attention:

    • For the cylindrical flower pot on this page, you've got the degrees reversed - the end closer to the viewer should be narrower, with the base (which is farther away) being wider. Also, be sure to construct any and all cylindrical structures around a central minor axis line - especially when you've got a lot of ellipses to lay out, as this helps us align them to one another. I am pleased to see that you included another ellipse inset within the opening to establish the thickness of the rim there (though you don't always do it with your other flower pots), although another to represent the level of the soil would help as well, giving the trunk of the plant something to intersect with.

    • When you've got a lot of forms overlapping one another - like the petals on this flower - you will feel tempted to cut them off where they're overlapped to avoid clutter. In this course however, it is important that you draw each and every form in its entirety, so as to help you understand how they sit in 3D space, and how they relate to the other forms around them within that space. Cutting them off causes us to focus more on how the given object looks from one specific angle, and thus neglects the focus of this course (being all about 3D spatial reasoning).

    The last thing I wanted to discuss is how you're approaching the more "detailed" drawings. Right now it seems that you're viewing it more as an opportunity to decorate your drawings - that is, to do what you can to make them more visually pleasing. This results in you transferring information more directly, by observation alone, from your reference image, and also often results in you adding form shading (which as noted here should not be playing a role in our drawings throughout this course). You can further review why pure observation is not what we're after in these notes as well.

    What we're doing in this course can be broken into two distinct sections - construction and texture - and they both focus on the same concept. With construction we're communicating to the viewer what they need to know to understand how they might manipulate this object with their hands, were it in front of them. With texture, we're communicating to the viewer what they need to know to understand what it'd feel like to run their fingers over the object's various surfaces. Both of these focus on communicating three dimensional information. Both sections have specific jobs to accomplish, and none of it has to do with making the drawing look nice.

    Instead of focusing on decoration, what we draw here comes down to what is actually physically present in our construction, just on a smaller scale. As discussed back in Lesson 2's texture section, we focus on each individual textural form, focusing on them one at a time and using the information present in the reference image to help identify and understand how every such textural form sits in 3D space, and how it relates within that space to its neighbours. Once we understand how the textural form sits in the world, we then design the appropriate shadow shape that it would cast on its surroundings. The shadow shape is important, because it's that specific shape which helps define the relationship between the form casting it, and the surface receiving it.

    As a result of this approach, you'll find yourself thinking less about excuses to add more ink, and instead you'll be working in the opposite - trying to get the information across while putting as little ink down as is strictly needed, and using those implicit markmaking techniques from Lesson 2 to help you with that.

    Now, there are definitely a number of things to be addressed, but I feel you should be equipped to do so on your own. As such, I'll be marking this lesson as complete.

    Next Steps:

    Move onto Lesson 4.

    This critique marks this lesson as complete.
    1 users agree
    10:11 PM, Tuesday September 27th 2022

    Starting with your form intersections, I can see quite clearly that you're making a good bit of progress in how you're thinking about the spatial relationships that you're defining - though as is entirely normal, there is still plenty of room for further improvement. Generally the plan is that we introduce the exercise and the problem in Lesson 2, then Lessons 3-5 students play with combining different forms in 3D space, albeit with more organic matter which tends to be much more straightforward to think through, and finally here we're put in a better position to discuss the theory a bit further.

    First off, I'm going to share this diagram with you. It may be fairly clear to you now, or it may take some time to fully digest (that is, going through it, then coming back to it periodically in the future), but the core of it is about how each intersection is made up of many parts - each part being the intersection between pairs of surfaces, and how that can change the way in which we think through defining those relationships on a more granular level. That is to say, it's about chaining intersections between different pairings of flat surfaces, pairings of rounded surfaces, and pairings of flat-and-rounded surfaces, rather than thinking of them in terms of "this is how a box intersects with a sphere". Understanding how to break them down can give us more concrete purpose and understanding to those decisions.

    It is worth mentioning that with a problem like this, students are quite prone to overthinking things. While it is necessary to come to some kind of a decision, and but some manner of line down, it's not uncommon for a student to panic and ultimately put something down without necessarily being able to explain the why of it. They end up working off instinct, hoping for the best, but if someone points at an arbitrary corner and asks "why did you go about it this way, what was you reasoning", the answer will generally be "I don't know".

    What matters is that you have a reason for every choice you make. That reason doesn't have to be correct, and it doesn't have to make sense to us. But if it follows some string of logic to you, then we come to a place where we can discuss it and explore why that thinking was incorrect. If however we can't speak to them in terms of specific decisions, then there's not much room to move forward one way or the other. This is as relevant when reflecting upon your own decisions later on, as it is when being critiqued by another.

    The second thing I'm giving you is these notes on your second page of form intersections. I picked it because most of the intersections on your first page were correct, or at least close to correct, whereas the second page seemed to have more of these instances of "overthinking" where you ended up placing some corners rather arbitrarily, deciding that the trajectory of your intersection had to change at a given point, despite not hitting an edge on either of the relevant forms (and thus having no real reason to end up with a corner). I also noted some places where the logic behind what you were depicting was inconsistent - like the cylinder piercing through the box, and the pyramid towards the upper left which I still can't entirely make sense of (although in writing this now, I'm starting to see that you didn't fill in the wrong face with hatching, but that the far side of the pyramid is larger than the closer end, leading to visual confusion in terms of what I was looking at).

    Anyway, I don't expect you to glance at these corrections and be able to make perfect sense of it all right off the bat - like the previous diagram, it'll demand some reflection and revisitation over time. Fortunately, we'll be able to discuss this exercise further, as it is also assigned as part of Lesson 7's homework.

    Carrying onto your object constructions, your work here is honestly very well done. There are some points I want to call out to keep you on the right track, but as a whole you're generally holding quite well to the core focus of this lesson - precision. Precision is often conflated with accuracy, but they're actually two different things (at least insofar as I use the terms here). Where accuracy speaks to how close you were to executing the mark you intended to, precision actually has nothing to do with putting the mark down on the page. It's about the steps you take beforehand to declare those intentions.

    So for example, if we look at the ghosting method, when going through the planning phase of a straight line, we can place a start/end point down. This increases the precision of our drawing, by declaring what we intend to do. From there the mark may miss those points, or it may nail them, it may overshoot, or whatever else - but prior to any of that, we have declared our intent, explaining our thought process, and in so doing, ensuring that we ourselves are acting on that clearly defined intent, rather than just putting marks down and then figuring things out as we go.

    In our constructions here, we build up precision primarily through the use of the subdivisions. These allow us first and foremost to separate the planning from the execution, where we identify the positions between an element should exist in a given dimension prior to actually adding it to the construction. In making the decisions beforehand, we're able to make those decisions separately, allowing us to focus more of our attention on how we're thinking through it all. Taking that even further, we can lean more heavily on the kinds of orthographic plans introduced in the computer mouse demo, to make those kinds of decisions even earlier, while only having to worry about two dimensions at a time, instead of three. This is something you're doing a great job of, as we can see here. Alongside the basic quadrant subdivisions that help us eyeball the positioning of certain major elements, you also went through the trouble of ensuring that the elements on one side were mirrored onto the other - while the specific spacing of those elements were still somewhat approximated/eyeballed, ensuring that they're symmetrical has considerable benefits, and you've used the tools well here to achieve that.

    For the most part, the issues I want to address (which I'll do so fairly quickly) are minor oversights that pertain more to the decisions made in the moment, rather than any overall misunderstanding. So, really just things to keep in mind going forward:

    • On this speaker, the side panel with the buttons looks off. I can see from the reference that this may be somewhat harder to specifically identify - the top edge of the speaker is definitely slanting downwards as we move farther back, whereas the panel's edges appear more straight (perhaps parallel to the base, and thus parallel to the bounding box as a whole), but it looks like when you drew it, you actually had them slanting more downwards, rather than less.

    • Also, remember that you should be limiting yourself to only filling areas in to establish cast shadows, not to capture local surface colour or form shading, as discussed here. Generally you'd stay away from hatching in this area, and stick to filling cast shadow shapes in solidly, and leaving everything else blank. Hatching does have a use here, as demonstrated in the bluetooth speaker demo, although it's really only to help provide additional information to convey that the surface is curved in space, where one might not automatically expect it to be so - so you might use it on a rounded edge, but not necessarily on a clearly primitive cylinder. Either way, it's not a decorative tool when used in this course. You can read more about hatching in this course here.

    • This spray was for the most part constructed really well, but it's how you tackled the finishing touches that I want to address. Here we can see some prominent areas where you've rounded those areas out not by adhering to the structure you'd painstakingly constructed, but by treating that structure more as a suggestion, and instead redrawing the edges more completely - similarly to this point from Lesson 3's leaves exercise. At no point should you, especially when constructing geometric objects, shift back to drawing as if in two dimensions, putting lines down with a looser relationship with the existing structure. Every action should be performed in three dimensions, and so every step should be grounded in what precedes it.

    That about covers it! I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete.

    Next Steps:

    Feel free to move onto the 25 wheel challenge, which is a prerequisite fore lesson 7.

    This critique marks this lesson as complete.
    0 users agree
    9:28 PM, Tuesday September 27th 2022

    Starting with your form intersections, this is generally a point at which students have had enough mileage playing with constructing forms and combining them between Lessons 3-5 that we can generally discuss the mechanics of intersection a little further without students getting lost in their own bafflement and confusion. While I can definitely see areas where you're thinking through the intersections better than back in Lesson 2, there is still lots of room for improvement here. To help with this, I'm going to provide you with two things:

    • Firstly, take a look at this diagram. It may not make full sense right off the bat, and may instead take time to fully sink in, so be sure to revisit it periodically. At its core, it's about the fact that intersections occur not between forms, but between surfaces - and a single form may have multiple surfaces, and even surfaces of different kinds. There's basically just two types - flat and rounded. A box consists of 6 flat surfaces, a cylinder consists of two flat and one rounded, and so on. Each intersection thus occurs between these surfaces. A cylinder intersecting with a box may for instance still just be an intersection between two flat surfaces if it's just the base of the cylinder that is relevant.

    • And next, here are some notes drawn directly on one of your pages. I haven't addressed every incorrect intersection, as I don't believe that would be an effective use of time and resources, but I have looked for a variety of different kinds of issues. Like with the previous point, you'll want to give yourself plenty of time for this to sink in - allowing it to do so across multiple readthroughs, spread out across a span of time.

    Continuing onto your object constructions, your work throughout this lesson has come along quite well, and you've done a great deal towards addressing the lesson's focus on increasing the precision in our constructions. Precision is often conflated with accuracy, but they're actually two different things (at least insofar as I use the terms here). Where accuracy speaks to how close you were to executing the mark you intended to, precision actually has nothing to do with putting the mark down on the page. It's about the steps you take beforehand to declare those intentions.

    So for example, if we look at the ghosting method, when going through the planning phase of a straight line, we can place a start/end point down. This increases the precision of our drawing, by declaring what we intend to do. From there the mark may miss those points, or it may nail them, it may overshoot, or whatever else - but prior to any of that, we have declared our intent, explaining our thought process, and in so doing, ensuring that we ourselves are acting on that clearly defined intent, rather than just putting marks down and then figuring things out as we go.

    In our constructions here, we build up precision primarily through the use of the subdivisions. These allow us to meaningfully study the proportions of our intended object in two dimensions with an orthographic study, then apply those same proportions to the object in three dimensions. Subdivision, as you've used it here, allows us to effectively make our decisions ahead of time, ensuring that we're not trying to make too many decisions at once - just like the ghosting method.

    This can however be taken even further - although not every situation calls for it. Since subdivision helps us to decide how we're going to place, say, the handle of a drawer (to say that the handle should span across the width of the object from the 1/4ths mark to the 3/4ths mark, and thus find those subdivisions first), before actually drawing the handle, The sooner we make those decisions however, the better - so while what you've done is great and adequate in many situations (that is, doing the subdivisions all as you construct the object), more complex problems like the vehicles we tackle in Lesson 7 will benefit immensely from making these decisions totally separately from our drawing.

    What we can use for this is basically the concept of the orthographic plans introduced in the computer mouse demo - though instead of laying down the basic quadrants like we did there, we can be a lot more specific in identifying the specific positioning of each major landmark. Here's an example I pulled from another student's work, where I went over it calling out a lot of the landmarks whose positions aren't specifically determined just yet. While we certainly can figure those things out further in the process, the benefit of making those decisions here is that right now we only have to think about two dimensions at a time, and so we have less to worry about. As long as we're still establishing those subdivisions as we need them using the techniques shown in the lesson, then those can be translated directly to a 3D construction without any loss of information or further concerns.

    And this is a process of making decisions. Precision is all about that, and as addressed before, we're not trying to achieve perfect accuracy. So if the drawer in our example had a handle that with perfect accuracy would be positioned between the 19/50ths and 41/50ths positions along the width of it, we can probably just round that to 2/5ths and 4/5ths. Is it perfectly accurate? No. Does it matter? Probably not, but there are circumstances where such rounding might conflict with the positioning of objects (for example, if you had something going from 29/50ths to 31/50ths, rounding them both would result in that thing disappearing altogether, since both its start and end would be rounded to 3/5ths).

    Now, there are definitely some ways in which your constructions' precision can be increased even when just dealing with doing subdivisions on the spot - so for example, as I've shown here on this jug, you kinda eyeballed placing the cylinder for the cap in, and could definitely have done better by defining a plane inset within that top plane, then drawing an ellipse inside of it. But all in all, you're definitely applying the principles of the lesson quite well, and what I've shared here should help you as you continue forwards.

    So, I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete.

    Next Steps:

    Feel free to move onto the 25 wheel challenge, which is a prerequisite for lesson 7.

    This critique marks this lesson as complete.
    0 users agree
    8:38 PM, Tuesday September 27th 2022

    Alrighty, let's jump right into it - I'm coming off the back end of a hurricane and several days without power, so I'm going to try and keep this as brief as I can, while still addressing any important points and calling out your main strengths.

    Starting with your form intersections, this is generally a point at which students have had enough mileage playing with constructing forms and combining them between Lessons 3-5 that we can generally discuss the mechanics of intersection a little further without students getting lost in their own bafflement and confusion. In your case however, it seems you've shot past even that - you're demonstrating a very well developing understanding of how the forms at play here relate to one another in 3D space, and the manner in which you're leveraging those intersection lines - piecing them together from sections each defined by the different surfaces that are interacting with one another - demonstrates this very clearly. It's to the point that this diagram which I often share at this stage, is probably of no use to you, as I can clearly see your understanding of it in your work.

    Continuing onto your object constructions, I can see that you've made fairly extensive use of subdivision throughout your work here, towards the core goal of increasing the precision of your work. Precision is often conflated with accuracy, but they're actually two different things (at least insofar as I use the terms here). Where accuracy speaks to how close you were to executing the mark you intended to, precision actually has nothing to do with putting the mark down on the page. It's about the steps you take beforehand to declare those intentions.

    So for example, if we look at the ghosting method, when going through the planning phase of a straight line, we can place a start/end point down. This increases the precision of our drawing, by declaring what we intend to do. From there the mark may miss those points, or it may nail them, it may overshoot, or whatever else - but prior to any of that, we have declared our intent, explaining our thought process, and in so doing, ensuring that we ourselves are acting on that clearly defined intent, rather than just putting marks down and then figuring things out as we go.

    In our constructions here, we build up precision primarily through the use of the subdivisions - but it's important to keep in mind why they allow us to increase our precision, so we can use such tools as effectively as possible, understanding the goals towards which we're working. The subdivisions, just like the ghosting method, forces us to make the decisions separately from the act of actually executing our marks. The earlier we make our decisions (so long as we hold to them and do not then try to contradict them later), the better.

    To that point, if we look at this coffee maker, you've definitely done an excellent job of thinking through each choice prior to making those marks - but those decisions can in fact be pushed farther back towards the beginning of the process. This is not a mistake you've made - rather, it's an opportunity to take what you've done well (and you undoubtedly have, given how much time you committed to the single construction) and look at how it can be done even better.

    Looking specifically at the orthographic plan you drew in the corner, this is definitely a helpful first step - but as shown here, a lot of the positioning of the important landmarks are loose - thus you're figuring out their positioning in more general terms, but really still making the decisions as to how you're going to place them and where while working on the 3D construction. If however we identify the positioning of those landmarks in the orthographic plan, where we don't have to worry about more than two dimensions, we find the process of building the object up to be vastly simplified. The trick comes down primarily to ensuring that when we make those decisions, we're building up to them using subdivision on the orthographic plan, since the process would be the same for applying such things in 3D space as well.

    One point worth driving home though is that this is a process of decision making. Our concern is less with accuracy, although it plays a part, but more on ensuring that the decisions are made at this early stage. So that means we may have an element that would span from 19/50ths to 41/50ths in the width dimension of your object - but subdividing into 50ths is going to be painful at best. There are however many situations where we can get away with simply asserting that this feature spans from 2/5ths to 4/5ths. Is it perfectly accurate? No. Does it matter? Probably not, but there are circumstances where such rounding might conflict with the positioning of objects (for example, if you had something going from 29/50ths to 31/50ths, rounding them both would result in that thing disappearing altogether, since both its start and end would be rounded to 3/5ths).

    But most cases allow for such little adjustments to be made, as long as you think through them entirely.

    Before I call this feedback finished, I just wanted to call one other point to your attention. As noted here, students are allowed to use a wider variety of tools (mainly with the inclusion of ballpoint), but I did stress that students should not be switching to a thicker pen to do a sort of clean-up pass (to separate their final object from its construction). You can use a thicker pen or a brush pen to fill in shadow shapes, but this should be limited only to actual cast shadow shapes, as discussed back in Lesson 2's texture section - doing this carelessly can result in simply filling in existing shapes in the drawing, or adding form shading. Cast shadows always require you to understand how the form in question sits in 3D space, and how it relates to the surface receiving the shadow.

    I wanted to draw this to your attention because it does seem like you're in places trying to separate your final object out from the construction (possibly using thicker pens at times, though I can't be entirely sure), and in other places where you're filling areas in more arbitrarily, without considering how those filled shapes represent cast shadows. Be sure to be more mindful of this going forward.

    Anyway, I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete.

    Next Steps:

    Feel free to move onto the 25 wheel challenge, which is a prerequisite for lesson 7.

    This critique marks this lesson as complete.
    0 users agree
    8:03 PM, Tuesday September 27th 2022

    As a whole your work here is really well done - which is good, because it's the last Lesson 5 critique I've got for the day (I'm tackling all of those first because they're generally the most time consuming to critique). And even better, because I'm scrambling to get back on schedule, which was somewhat thrown awry due to being hit by a hurricane and without power for several days. So, your critique will hopefully be short(er), touching really only on the things that will help you continue to continue making the best use of these exercises and tools. Just remember - while I'm going to focus on areas of improvement, you are by and large doing very well, and are applying the concepts from the lesson and the course well. Some of these will even be a bit nitpicky, but useful all the same.

    So, jumping right into it, you're making excellent use of the additional masses in many cases, and clearly thinking a great deal about how each mass is designed so as to maintain a tight and clear relationship with the existing structures. I did however identify a few areas where some additional advice would be useful. Much of the following notes will be drawn on this page from your work.

    First off, this is not an issue I saw often - usually you were more particular about using sharp corners where they were needed - but here you can see how the ends of these masses are still quite rounded, which does not establish a clear relationship with the existing structure. In order to establish how the mass actually wraps around the leg's base sausage, we need to use both an inward curve to show how the mass wraps around the visible section of the underlying structure, and a sharp corner to establish that the same thing is going on along the opposite side (and so the mass hooks back around along that side in the manner a contour line does).

    Here's a diagram depicting this concept - along the top, it feels more like the new mass is a sticker being pasted on top in two dimensions, whereas along the bottom we get an actual relationship in three dimensions.

    So here's this concept in action. Along with the correction along the leg, I made some adjustments to the big mass added to the neck, just to strengthen those relationships by gently adjusting some shallow outward curves back into inward curves where it is beneficial to do so. I also added the same to the other side, for the sake of symmetry - something that can easily go overlooked, but that is inherent in any animal.

    The second point I wanted to address on this horse was this mass whose silhouette ended up being quite complex. While this isn't strictly wrong if there is enough reason for all of these different inward/outward curves and various corners, any situation where you find yourself trying to get a single mass to establish quite so many relationships, and really accomplish so many different things, is a situation that should cause you to think twice. As shown further down in that image, I demonstrated how the same could be achieved with many separate masses - first starting with establishing a big one along either side, and then creating that inward curve through the combination of shallower outward curves (which is the only way you could reasonably create an inward curve along the outside of the structure's silhouette, if we're playing by the rules that such things can only be created by another form pressing in on that silhouette, as shown here.

    The last thing I wanted to take some time to discuss is head construction. Lesson 5 has a lot of different strategies for constructing heads, between the various demos. Given how the course has developed, and how I'm finding new, more effective ways for students to tackle certain problems. So not all the approaches shown are equal, but they do have their uses. As it stands, as explained at the top of the tiger demo page (here), the current approach that is the most generally useful, as well as the most meaningful in terms of these drawings all being exercises in spatial reasoning, is what you'll find here on the informal demos page.

    There are a few key points to this approach:

    • The specific shape of the eyesockets - the specific pentagonal shape allows for a nice wedge in which the muzzle can fit in between the sockets, as well as a flat edge across which we can lay the forehead area.

    • This approach focuses heavily on everything fitting together - no arbitrary gaps or floating elements. This allows us to ensure all of the different pieces feel grounded against one another, like a three dimensional puzzle.

    • We have to be mindful of how the marks we make are cuts along the curving surface of the cranial ball - working in individual strokes like this (rather than, say, drawing the eyesocket with an ellipse) helps a lot in reinforcing this idea of engaging with a 3D structure.

    Try your best to employ this method when doing constructional drawing exercises using animals in the future, as closely as you can. Sometimes it seems like it's not a good fit for certain heads, but with a bit of finagling it can still apply pretty well. To demonstrate this for another student, I found the most banana-headed rhinoceros I could, and threw together this demo.

    And with that, I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete. As a whole you've done very well, and while you've got some points to keep in mind, you are certainly equipped to apply this yourself. Keep up the great work.

    Next Steps:

    Feel free to move onto the 250 cylinder challenge, which is a prerequisite for lesson 6.

    This critique marks this lesson as complete.
    0 users agree
    7:04 PM, Tuesday September 27th 2022

    It's pretty clear that you've put a great deal of time and effort into your work here, although there are some notable choices you've made here that, to varying degrees, contradict some of the feedback I'd provided previously - primarily when it comes to the point about avoiding modifying the silhouettes of the forms, but rather always engaging with your construction in three dimensions - not as a mere set of lines and shapes on a flat page.

    This issue comes up in two main ways - there are the places where you've just ended up modifying those silhouettes (in very much the way I advised you not to), as shown here (as before, in red where you cut into the silhouettes of your forms, and in blue where you extended off them). There are also the places where you've ended up modifying the silhouettes of those forms, but perhaps unintentionally, by going back over your existing linework in trying to add line weight somewhat overzealously. That is to say, when going back over a form's silhouette to make it darker and thicker, you might have deviated from its path here and there, causing unintended alterations to it. There are also circumstances where you may have tried to apply the same stroke of line weight across multiple forms, jumping from one to another, and in so doing "bridging" from one to the next and accidentally enclosing a bit of 2D space against the structure, effectively extending that structure's silhouette out - something we can often see very small instances of on your animals' legs, although we can also see it here as you have your line weight jump from that additional mass back to the main torso's silhouette.

    While the first point is something we've already discussed at length - although being that it was back in May, you may not have done what you required in order to keep it fresh in your mind at all times and thus may have forgotten the bulk of it, working off a shadow of a recollection - the second point relates back to points addressed further back in the course as well. Specifically, these notes advising students against separating their drawings into a lighter, fainter, "rough" sketch followed by a darker "clean-up" pass, as well as these notes which explain how line weight should be used in a much more limited extent, only to clarify the overlaps between specific forms, in the localized areas where those overlaps occur, rather than as generally as you've used it here.

    While we do not expect students to produce perfect work, or even good work, what we do require above all else is that the student invest their time in every way they need to execute the work to the best of their current abilities. That can mean taking as much time as one needs in the construction of each form, the drawing of each shape, and the execution of each mark. It can also mean taking plenty of time to observe one's reference - not just at the start of a drawing, but frequently throughout its process to inform every choice and decision we make. And moreover, it also means taking the time you require to ensure that the feedback that has been provided in the past - not just in reading through it the first time, but in revisiting it as frequently as you require to keep that information fresh in your mind as you work through the homework, or whatever else you may require to do so. For some students that means taking notes so they have what they need to keep in the forefront of their minds open in front of them as they do their next work.

    The reason this is particularly unfortunately is really that a lot of your other work is coming along quite well. I can see that you're making considerable efforts in how you're using your additional masses - although the excessive use of line weight does cause them to kind of get smoothed out together, reducing their benefits as 3D forms, and instead flattening much in your drawings into two dimensions. I do however have a couple points of advice where your those additional masses' silhouette designs can be improved further.

    One thing that helps with the shape here is to think about how the mass would behave when existing first in the void of empty space, on its own. It all comes down to the silhouette of the mass - here, with nothing else to touch it, our mass would exist like a soft ball of meat or clay, made up only of outward curves. A simple circle for a silhouette.

    Then, as it presses against an existing structure, the silhouette starts to get more complex. It forms inward curves wherever it makes contact, responding directly to the forms that are present. The silhouette is never random, of course - always changing in response to clear, defined structure. You can see this demonstrated in this diagram.

    I do believe you understand this to a fair degree, and I can see that you're thinking through at least parts of your silhouette designs with this in mind. That said, I did also notice a number of places where you'd use a sort of outward curve, or even something one might think of as a "soft" corner, where a sharp corner leading into an inward curve would have better established a relationship in 3D space with the existing structure. Here's what I mean. In each of the masses on that giraffe that I highlighted, you've got one end with a nice sharp corner, but the other with a softer one. As shown below, soft corners like this do not establish any relationship in 3D space - rather it's more like the mass exists on top of the existing structure, pasted on top like a sticker over a drawing. The sharp corners on both sides are important to establish how they relate together in three dimensions.

    Here's how we might put this into action, with clear and purposeful thought behind where we place every component of each silhouette - each outward curve, each inward curve, and the nature of the corners between them. You'll also note that I allow them to build upon one another - because as soon as a mass is added to the existing structure, it becomes part of that existing structure, and thus whatever comes next has to deal with it as well. This is why thinking about our constructions strictly in three dimensions is so important.

    You'll also note that the masses at the hip and shoulder, where we get all those big engine muscles that allow these animals to walk around, we can take advantage of these structures because they give us something to wrap our masses around, giving us more spatial relationships being defined, and thus helping everything to feel more grounded and solid. In many cases taking advantage of such things requires us to stretch our masses further down along the sides to "reach" those areas - but doing so merely increases the "grip" those masses have on the overall structure.

    Now before I call this critique done, there's one last topic I wanted to touch upon - head construction. Lesson 5 has a lot of different strategies for constructing heads, between the various demos. Given how the course has developed, and how I'm finding new, more effective ways for students to tackle certain problems. So not all the approaches shown are equal, but they do have their uses. As it stands, as explained at the top of the tiger demo page (here), the current approach that is the most generally useful, as well as the most meaningful in terms of these drawings all being exercises in spatial reasoning, is what you'll find here on the informal demos page.

    There are a few key points to this approach:

    • The specific shape of the eyesockets - the specific pentagonal shape allows for a nice wedge in which the muzzle can fit in between the sockets, as well as a flat edge across which we can lay the forehead area.

    • This approach focuses heavily on everything fitting together - no arbitrary gaps or floating elements. This allows us to ensure all of the different pieces feel grounded against one another, like a three dimensional puzzle.

    • We have to be mindful of how the marks we make are cuts along the curving surface of the cranial ball - working in individual strokes like this (rather than, say, drawing the eyesocket with an ellipse) helps a lot in reinforcing this idea of engaging with a 3D structure.

    Try your best to employ this method when doing constructional drawing exercises using animals in the future, as closely as you can. Sometimes it seems like it's not a good fit for certain heads, but with a bit of finagling it can still apply pretty well. To demonstrate this for another student, I found the most banana-headed rhinoceros I could, and threw together this demo.

    As a whole it's clear to me that you've stumbled here. You've put the information you were able to recall to good use, but in neglecting to go back and review past feedback as much as you required in order to apply it, you've unfortunately undermined those efforts, and not held to your responsibilities as a student here. These things happen - but hopefully it will be an opportunity to reflect upon how you approach the information imparted to you, and will be able to revise how you approach such things for your betterment going forward.

    I've assigned revisions below. When doing these revisions, I want you to note on the page the date of each session you spent on it, along with a rough estimate of how much time each session was given.

    Next Steps:

    Please submit 5 pages of animal constructions, once you've given yourself the time you need to review the past feedback.

    When finished, reply to this critique with your revisions.
    0 users agree
    5:57 PM, Tuesday September 27th 2022

    Over the course of the lesson, you certainly show a good deal of improvement and growth. That said, while I can see you making some concerted efforts - at least some of the time - to address issues I called out in previous feedback, there are still places were many of these issues show up in ways that are not insignificant, so I will certainly be pointing that out.

    Starting with your organic intersections, these are generally looking good. You're drawing the forms such that they feel stable in a pile under the shared force of gravity, and you're certainly thinking about how the shadows they cast fall upon other surfaces, following the curvature of those other surfaces rather than clinging to the silhouette of the form doing the casting.

    Continuing onto your animal constructions, I think that right off the bat there's a fair bit we can do by first talking about this bear construction, as it features a number of different issues that are present to varying degrees across the rest of your work. In order to address these concerns, I'm going to show you a different sets of notes marked out on top of the drawing.

    • First off, a simple little mistake, although one that suggests that you may be a bit prone to rushing through the steps of construction. Here the line I've marked out in red, effectively establishing the bottom edge of the basic torso sausage demonstrated here, is missing. Thus, going forward from there, you don't actually have a solid, complete sausage form to construct, which itself should hinder you from really engaging with your construction in three dimensions.

    • Similarly, here I've pointed out a number of spots where you've made little adjustments in two dimensions to your drawing - altering silhouettes by cutting into them (in red) and extending off them (in blue) as 2D shapes rather than with all the limitations that come with being a three dimensional structure - something we discussed at length in my critique of your Lesson 4 work.

    • In that Lesson 4 critique, I also noted that you had been using the sausage method albeit inconsistently, not adhering to every element laid out in the sausage method diagram. I can see that you have put some effort into rectifying this, although you do sometimes stray pretty wildly in a few ways, and I see as many cases where you've defined the joints between your sausage segments as cases where you have not. Here I can see that your lower leg segments aren't sausages at all - you appear to be drawing one end as though it wraps around the existing structure, instead of intersecting with it as a basic sausage and then defining that intersection as demonstrated in Lesson 4. Another thing I noticed was that you'd frequently double up your lines when drawing your sausages (similarly to drawing "through" our ellipses two full times before lifting our pen - although this is something we specifically do because it leans into our arms' natural desire to draw ellipsoid shapes, and to do so for anything else would cause you to lean more towards ellipses as well). You should be drawing these with just one pass.

    As I've noted, I think you have demonstrated some carelessness, amidst your enthusiasm to improve. That is to say, you're clearly eager to invest time and effort, but you aren't necessarily giving yourself the time to ensure that you're using that time and effort correctly. You're not reviewing past feedback frequently enough to remember it correctly, and so you're susceptible to applying them differently than what was described - all the while still trying to address them. In essence, to save yourself a few minutes here and there, you're notably limiting how the time you do spend actually benefits you.

    Continuing on, I wanted to talk about the use of additional masses. While you do use them to build upon your existing structures, the manner in which you design their shapes can definitely be improved to yield a much stronger impression of how the masses actually wrap around one another. Across your work you do have some areas of success - like how you designed the silhouette of the belly mass on this elephant - along with a number of cases where a given mass doesn't really "grip" the existing structure in three dimensions, as we see with the mass on this frog's backside, which doesn't quite establish a clear 3D relationship between it and the structure to which it attaches.

    One thing that helps with the shape here is to think about how the mass would behave when existing first in the void of empty space, on its own. It all comes down to the silhouette of the mass - here, with nothing else to touch it, our mass would exist like a soft ball of meat or clay, made up only of outward curves. A simple circle for a silhouette.

    Then, as it presses against an existing structure, the silhouette starts to get more complex. It forms inward curves wherever it makes contact, responding directly to the forms that are present. The silhouette is never random, of course - always changing in response to clear, defined structure. You can see this demonstrated in this diagram.

    One issue I frequently noticed in how you used additional masses was that where you placed your corners was often a little off. Here I've noted in red the edges of the existing structure to which you were attaching your masses, and in blue I marked out where the corner was placed. These corners should be right on the edge itself, as shown here (along the top I marked in green where your corners ought to have been).

    Here's how I would have approached those masses on the bear. Corners go right on the silhouette of the existing structure, or where the mass presses up against another structure. Such opportunities are things we actively look for and exploit - like how I've wrapped them around the masses at the shoulder and hip, because this helps to create more relationships between the different elements present here. Just keep in mind that if there is no structure defined to press up against, there can be no corner - so instead of creating two artificial corners along the platypus' side, something like this where we wrap around with a more gradual, smoother transition, would be better.

    When it comes to using these kinds of additional masses on your leg structures (I believe I shared some diagrams with you on how to use them on top of the basic sausage structure in my Lesson 4 feedback), it seems you didn't really make much use of them, often "bridging" from one sausage segment to the next using a one-off line (as we see here) that effectively enclosed a flat shape between the structures, but not establishing how it's meant to change the structure in three dimensions.

    I recommend you review those other diagrams. You can also take a look at this one, which I use to help remind students that they shouldn't only focus on the areas where a form breaks the silhouette of the leg, but rather also consider the inbetween parts that help define the manner in which they all fit together.

    And while we're on the topic of additional notes, these should help you in deciding how to approach your animals' feet.

    Now the last topic I wanted to touch upon is head construction. Lesson 5 has a lot of different strategies for constructing heads, between the various demos. Given how the course has developed, and how I'm finding new, more effective ways for students to tackle certain problems. So not all the approaches shown are equal, but they do have their uses. As it stands, as explained at the top of the tiger demo page (here), the current approach that is the most generally useful, as well as the most meaningful in terms of these drawings all being exercises in spatial reasoning, is what you'll find here on the informal demos page.

    There are a few key points to this approach:

    • The specific shape of the eyesockets - the specific pentagonal shape allows for a nice wedge in which the muzzle can fit in between the sockets, as well as a flat edge across which we can lay the forehead area.

    • This approach focuses heavily on everything fitting together - no arbitrary gaps or floating elements. This allows us to ensure all of the different pieces feel grounded against one another, like a three dimensional puzzle.

    • We have to be mindful of how the marks we make are cuts along the curving surface of the cranial ball - working in individual strokes like this (rather than, say, drawing the eyesocket with an ellipse) helps a lot in reinforcing this idea of engaging with a 3D structure.

    Try your best to employ this method when doing constructional drawing exercises using animals in the future, as closely as you can. Sometimes it seems like it's not a good fit for certain heads, but with a bit of finagling it can still apply pretty well. To demonstrate this for another student, I found the most banana-headed rhinoceros I could, and threw together this demo.

    Now while I certainly see that you have put no small amount of effort here, I have pointed out how you in many ways undermined those efforts by not being as aware of the feedback I'd provided previously as you should have. You will likely want to reflect upon how you go about processing the feedback you receive, so as to best meet your responsibilities of being a student of this course - not to produce perfect work, or even good work, but to invest as much time into each area that requires it as is necessary.

    I'll be assigning some revisions below, though before you tackle them, give yourself ample time to go back over this feedback, as well as the previous feedback you've received. If you find it difficult to retain specifics, then you may also want to consider taking notes so you have something on hand to refer to as you tackle the homework.

    When doing these revisions, I want you to note on the page the date of each session you spent on it, along with a rough estimate of how much time each session was given.

    Next Steps:

    Please submit 5 additional pages of animal constructions.

    When finished, reply to this critique with your revisions.
    4:30 PM, Tuesday September 27th 2022

    For the revisions, you can choose whatever animals you wish. They do not have to fall under any particular category, as the key issues that stood out to me pertained to how you were approaching all your constructions more generally. So, in the 4 assigned pages of animal constructions, you can do 2 pages for each 2 of 2 subjects, or you can choose to do 4 different subjects, 1 page each, or whatever else.

The recommendation below is an advertisement. Most of the links here are part of Amazon's affiliate program (unless otherwise stated), which helps support this website. It's also more than that - it's a hand-picked recommendation of something I've used myself. If you're interested, here is a full list.
The Art of Blizzard Entertainment

The Art of Blizzard Entertainment

While I have a massive library of non-instructional art books I've collected over the years, there's only a handful that are actually important to me. This is one of them - so much so that I jammed my copy into my overstuffed backpack when flying back from my parents' house just so I could have it at my apartment. My back's been sore for a week.

The reason I hold this book in such high esteem is because of how it puts the relatively new field of game art into perspective, showing how concept art really just started off as crude sketches intended to communicate ideas to storytellers, designers and 3D modelers. How all of this focus on beautiful illustrations is really secondary to the core of a concept artist's job. A real eye-opener.

This website uses cookies. You can read more about what we do with them, read our privacy policy.