As a whole, I'm seeing a lot of good here. There are many aspects that clearly show a great deal of respect for the overall constructional process, and I can see that your brain is pushing in the right direction - however, there are also a number of things that I did call out in regards to your work on Lesson 4 that do still come up here - specifically when we get into the idea of always working in 3D space, and avoiding the temptation to take shortcuts that require us to engage with our construction as a flat, two dimensional drawing.

As I've marked out here, there are on a number of your drawings places where you add flat shapes to what are otherwise three dimensional constructions, or where you cut into the silhouettes of 3D forms. As we discussed back in Lesson 4's critique, this gives the viewer reminders that what they're looking at is a flat drawing, and not a solid, three dimensional object. We ourselves, as we draw, are a viewer as well, and so every time we're reminded of this, we're more likely to make yet more marks that undermine the illusion we're trying to create. Conversely, if we make a point of ensuring that every form we add is itself solid and 3D, then it becomes easier to hold up that trend and continue reinforcing the illusion instead.

So that issue is important, and precedes pretty much anything else we might discuss here. Fortunately, you don't work that way all the time - rather, you have a tendency to jump back and forth, with plenty of drawings here that largely do focus on at the very least, adding completely self-enclosed forms at each stage. Being that they're independently self-enclosed, they have greater potential to represent 3D forms, whereas having an open end sinks that ship from the get-go.

Next, let's look at how you're approaching drawing the additional masses themselves. As I've shown on this camel, you end up with a lot of very complicated shapes that are trying to simply accomplish too much, and as a result the way they're drawn doesn't establish a clear sense of how they're meant to actually attach to the existing structure.

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.

You can see this demonstrated here on the same camel - note how I've broken those forms down into individual, much simpler ones, focusing the complexity of those silhouettes specifically on establishing how they wrap around the existing structure. I'm also very careful in where I allow myself to place inward curves vs. outward curves, ensuring that all of the complexity of each silhouette is reserved only for pressing up against existing, defined forms.

This manner of designing the specific shape of each mass applies as well to the masses we build up onto the legs (and any other additions that wrap around an existing structure), as you can see here.

The last thing I wanted to discuss for now is how you're approaching head construction. You're playing around with a fair number of approaches here, with some functioning more in line with the principles of construction and respect for 3D relationships, and others less so.

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.

Additionally, remember that a lot of the eyeball itself gets hidden behind the eyelids - right now you're drawing the eyeballs quite small, and so they're almost completely visible. Instead, try to draw them larger, and draw the lids each as their own additional masses, as shown here. This should help you develop a better sense of how the eyelids wrap around the existing structure.

So! I've called out three main points to work on. I'll go ahead and assign some revisions below so you can demonstrate your understanding of what I've laid out here.