Honestly, as a whole you're doing a great job. You're demonstrating a very strong understanding of not only the core principles of construction, and how these different forms relate to one another in 3D space, but also how to leverage these additional masses and build them on top of one another to gradually achieve more complex results. While there are a few areas where I still feel you can be steered back in the right direction, overall you're doing a great job, and I'm quite pleased with your results.

For this critique, I picked out a couple of your drawings which I felt represented some of the key mistakes I was seeing. I marked them up here, and will get into the points I've raised below.

Overall these issues fall into three main categories:

• Use of additional masses

• Approach for building up smaller structures, like feet/toes/etc

• Head construction

In all of these areas, you're certainly making strides in the right direction, but I think I can help you tackle these issues a bit more effectively.

Firstly, for the additional masses I can clearly see that you're being quite mindful in many areas of how you're designing their silhouettes, in order to have them read as being three dimensional, and to define their relationships in three dimensions with the structures to which they attach. When it comes to pressing up against other parts of the structures, you're actually doing quite well. I actually only noticed the one area on the lynx where leveraging inward curves instead of outward ones would better convey how those masses are pressing up against one another.

In general, an inward curve is how you'll want to convey the majority of points where the form on top presses up against another. I understand why you went with an outward curve here, due to how the mass and the lynx's body is turned in space. If we were dealing with a strictly symmetrical form which was more evenly distributed, you'd have made the right call. But in this case, as you can see in my own marks on top of your lynx, the inward curve still helps convey the relationship between those forms better, and we are free to design those silhouettes as required to achieve that singular goal - to capture strong spatial relationships.

On the camel, we run into the opposite issue - here the major masses for its humps end up with too much complexity where there simply isn't cause for any. Complexity - such as inward curves - only comes in response to contact being made with other structures. It's true that you added another mass on top after the fact, but given that it came afterwards, it doesn't factor into how we construct the main hump masses. So, we stick to the rule that along the top, where the masses aren't touching anything, we use outward curves, and along the bottom, where the humps are pressing up against the camel's torso, we use some inward curves to define those relationships. You can also see this concept illustrated in this diagram.

Of course, we can continue to build upon this structure, filling in the gap between the humps, and even adding on top of them to achieve more height - but we always stick to the same rules. Where nothing is pressing up against the form, we use outward curves. That's actually why I filled the gap between them with so many more forms - one with an inward curve across the top would have been easy, but it wouldn't have been as structurally sound.

To the second category of issues I wanted to address, let's look at how you're approaching the feet. The foot structures themselves are generally well done, especially on the lynx. Here you've got a somewhat boxy form. Just like the additional masses, the silhouette is key - with careful use of corners, we can imply the different planes of that structure without ever adding any internal detail.

The issue arises from how you draw the toes. You capture them as blobs which don't actually exist believably in three dimensions. Without corner and design to their silhouettes, they don't read as 3D structures. Instead, applying the same principle as the core foot construction - creating boxy forms through the strategic use of corners, we can build out each individual toe. Sure, the lines overlap and it gets a little cluttered, but as long as you're focusing on the specific form you want to construct for each one, it won't end up feeling too messy, and more importantly, the structure will be defined.

Ultimately on the camel, the issue was largely that for the front foot, you didn't really build anything out, and left it rather underdeveloped. The back feet were definitely better.

The last point relates to head construction. Here I can definitely see you employing elements from the informal head construction explanation - it's definitely going to serve as the basis for the main head construction content when my course overhaul reaches lesson 5, but for now it has to stay in the informal demos section. Here I don't really have significant complaints - just a reminder to be generous with the size of your eye sockets, and to be sure to lay down that structure in its entirety first, then build on top of it. It helps separate the head into a series of planar elements, which will serve as the foundation for anything else you wish to build there, so having them in place will help you decide how to approach anything that follows.

So! While there are a few things I want you to keep in mind, as a whole you're doing great. I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete.