Yes- you are welcome to post the critiques you receive publicly, and make videos about your experience with Drawabox. We have no restrictions on that sort of thing.

Jumping into your work, it seems you may have misread what was assigned for the first part of the lesson. As highlighted here the assignment was to do two pages of organic intersections - that's the one with the piles of sausage forms. Not a huge deal, just be sure to read through the instructions more carefully so you're putting your time into the right places.

Continuing onto your animal constructions, one of the things I did want to mention in regards to your choice of working in a sketchbook is what I'd mentioned to you back in my critique of your Lesson 3 work, in response to one of your questions:

To answer your questions first, it comes down to giving each drawing as much room it individually requires. Sometimes a drawing needs the whole page, and sometimes it only needs half or less. 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.

Looking at how you're using the space available to you on the sketchbook, there are some very clear signs that your drawings are somewhat restricted, which does impede how well you're able to apply the exercises we're performing here. Part of that comes down to the fact that your sketchbook does restrict how easily you can draw on a given page (specifically in the fact that the opposite side is generally going to try and fold itself over). Then there's the fact that you specifically appear to have split each page in half - not based on what the drawings themselves require, but rather preallocating them beforehand. So, you could be in a situation where one drawing requires less than half, and the other requires more than half - but instead each one still gets half, which is more than one needs, and less than the other demands.

So, while you're certainly free to choose to work in a sketchbook for these, these are things you should take into consideration - along with the fact that it is not something I would recommend in order for you to get the most out of this course.

Continuing on, another point I'd raised in a previous critique about the difference between texture as we approach it in this course, and more arbitrary decoration. I recommend that as you're still very much focusing on decoration, give these reminders from the Lesson 2 texture section a read to ensure that you understand what texture is actually about. I also recommend that you read through my critique of your Lesson 4 work again.

Moving onto your animal constructions, one of the major points I wanted to discuss here is how you're approaching your additional masses. There are essentially two main approaches to build upon an existing structure. In the case that we want our new addition to interpenetrate the existing structure, we can define the joint between them with a contour line, like in the form intersections exercise. A good example of this is where we use contour lines to define the joint between the sausage segments that make up our leg structures. Alternatively, if the new mass is meant to wrap around the given structure (like our additional masses here), then it all falls on the specific way in which that mass's silhouette is designed.

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.

Here it is in action on one of your constructions. Note how every inward curve I've marked out in purple occurs due to direct contact with another existing structure - even in the cases where one mass is built upon another mass (as each one becomes part of the existing structure once it's been added). Also, I've taken advantage of blocking in the shoulder and hip masses, because they give us structures to press our masses against, in order to make it all more grounded and integrated with one another, resulting in a more solid structure.

Another point to pay attention to is the specific use of sharp corners. Compare this to the original masses on that oryx construction, as well as on this bear - the way you draw them tends to forgo the sharp corners, in favour of more rounded corners. Unfortunately, these result in a sort of "blobby" impression which does not establish how the forms relate to one another in 3D space, instead making them feel more like a flat shape pasted on top of a drawing.

One thing students do when they haven't quite designed the silhouette of a new mass correctly, resulting in it feeling flat, is that they'll try to pile on additional contour lines as you've done here. Unfortunately, at best they're not really going to help. They'll make the mass feel 3D on its own, in isolation, but what we're after here is establishing a relationship between the different forms. It's those relationships which make the different pieces feel 3D. But at worst, what they do is they convince us that we can somehow fix an incorrect silhouette, and so adding contour lines like this shifts our attention from doing the design of the silhouette properly, to getting whatever down on the page and trying to fix it afterwards.

In general, try not to apply any of the tools we've introduced throughout this course without really thinking about what you're trying to achieve with a given mark, and how that mark is going to be approached to best achieve that goal. Contour lines of this sort - the ones that pile atop the same form - tend to suffer from diminishing returns. One may help a form feel more solid, a second will have less of an impact, and the third even less. While we do pile them on in the organic forms with contour lines exercise, it's primarily to introduce the concept. So, always make sure that you're thinking about the purpose between each and every mark you put down. The ghosting method's planning phase is all about that, so make sure you're not drawing anything without considering its purpose.

Continuing on, there are a couple things I wanted to call out really quickly:

• In regards to the point I made in my critique of your Lesson 4 work, we need to make sure that we do not alter the silhouettes of existing forms, or work in any way that is strictly in two dimensions. Everything we build upon our construction must be a new, complete, fully self-enclosed 3D form. As I've highlighted here, you're still cutting into your silhouettes (in red), and extending off the silhouettes of existing forms (in blue).

• One situation that can result in unintentionally extending your silhouettes is the misuse of line weight. Line weight should generally be added specifically to clarify how different forms overlap one another, being limited to the local areas where those overlaps occur (as explained here). Alternatively, if we apply line weight too broadly, we end up tracing back over long sections of line, focusing entirely on how those lines run across the flat page, rather than how they represent the edges of forms in 3D space. We can also end up with extensions of our silhouettes if we allow that line weight to jump across from one form to another, as we can see here on your oryx.

The last thing I wanted to mention is in regards to 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, as a whole I've given you quite a few things to consider. I've also called out a number of points that I'd raised previously, that you appear not to have paid enough attention to. I'm going to assign some revisions below, so you can address these issues and demonstrate your understanding.