Starting with your form intersections, at this stage in the course we aren't quite at the point where we expect students to be completely comfortable with all types of intersections. The exercise is itself a distillation of the main problem the course as a whole, primarily through the constructional drawing exercises from lessons 3-7, seeks to address: spatial reasoning. At this point, we find most students are pretty comfortable with intersections involving flat surfaces only (those between boxes, pyramids, and the flat sides of forms like cylinders and cones), while still struggling with those that throw rounded surfaces into the mix.

In your case, I think you're actually much more comfortable with those rounded surfaces than average, but you also do show cases where your flat-surface intersections are at times off. I've made some notes on your work here, but the main thing to keep in mind when it comes to these intersections is that they occur between different surfaces (sometimes many surfaces, but only ever two pairs of them at a time) - and it's the orientation of those surfaces that dictates the specific way in which that intersection occurs. You definitely show understanding of this in a number of cases, but I think there are others where either due to the complexity of the problem, or because of distraction - both can cause us to pay less attention to what's actually in front of us, and instead try to "intuit" how it all works. Unfortunately everything we do hyper-intentionally throughout this course is intended to help develop our intuition and instincts, so if we try using them here, it creates a rather messy, unproductive anti-feedback-loop.

In addition to the notes I wrote directly on your work, I also wanted to offer this diagram. It discusses two main things - one being how we can look at one of the given surface as being the knife-blade that cuts through a different form, and how its orientation tells us which cross-section of the other form is relevant here (as shown with the planes of the box telling us which cross-sections of the sphere are relevant). The other is looking at the curving surfaces by framing them in relation to a hard edge - which is basically a transition between two very differently oriented surfaces - where the transition is spread out across more space. That may help fill in some of the gaps in the understanding you've developed thus far - and of course, we'll take another look at this exercise as part of Lesson 7.

Continuing onto your object constructions, your work here by and large does a good job of addressing the main focus of this lesson, which is all about how we can approach our constructions to control with greater precision the proportions of the outcome, which up until now hasn't really been a significant focus. 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. How far we take this is less a matter of skill, and more one of choice - and needless to say, you made a clear and concerted choice to push your constructions and the planning that preceded them as far as you reasonably could, and in so doing, you made fantastic use of the various tools we provided in the lesson material.

If I'm honest, I'm finding it a little difficult to find out anything you've done wrong, so the couple of issues I'll outline below are fairly nitpicky:

• For this watering can, I'm assuming that's meant to be an open top since I'm not seeing any lid structure. In that case, it would be a good idea to include an inner ellipse to define the thickness of the structure's rim. Right now being defined by just one ellipse makes it appear more paper-thin, which does undermine its general solidity somewhat. Similarly the handle appears to have been defined as a single paper-thin chain of surfadces, which has a similar impact.

• Also keep in mind that any ellipse you freehand should still apply the same principles of markmaking and other restrictions for the ellipses we draw elsewhere in this course - including using the ghosting method, drawing through them two full times before lifting your pen, and so forth. Where we can use a given tool, we should - so if an ellipse template you have fits properly, then use it - but if it doesn't, we still fall back to the same core markmaking mechanics from earlier.

Anyway, all in all, really solid work. I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete.