Check Out NMA    Learn More About our Partnership
Close and Enjoy Drawabox Ad-free
View Full Submission View Parent Comment
7:17 PM, Thursday April 15th 2021

There's definitely improvement here, but there are also a number of significant issues that are coming into play here. I went over a couple of your drawings to point some issues out, here on your wolf and here on your mountain goat. Here are the main points I'm noticing, though I've got a couple additional points on the pages:

  • You've definitely improved on drawing those additional masses, but there are still issues that suggest that you're not necessarily always thinking about how the silhouette's shape needs to reflect how that mass either is pressing against solid structure, or not pressing against anything. It's really important to note that there is improvement here, but that you still need to go back over my explanation from my critique, and ultimately to be more conscious of how each mass's silhouette is being designed.

  • So to be specific, on the goat's neck/shoulder area, you had complexity there with the inward curve across the top of the mass which implies that there's something else pressing up against it. Since there isn't anything there, it needs to be a simpler outward curve. If you need that dip there, then you should be constructing it as two (or more) separate masses.

  • When you end up dealing with smaller additional masses (especially on the legs) you have the opposite problem - you use outward, simpler curves when the mass is pressing up against another structure, which is precisely where you need to be using inward curves because that's where contact is being made.

  • Another major issue I'm seeing is that you're not really employing the head construction explanation I shared with you previously. You may be employing it in small ways, but it's inconsistent, and there are elements missing to varying degrees. This tells me you probably read through it, but then allowed it to slip into the background, not reviewing it again while working on your drawings.

Another very significant point, which I didn't mark out on those two pages, is that you are currently not spending enough of your time studying your reference image. I'm seeing lots of signs that you're falling into the trap of oversimplification, which occurs naturally when we spend too long looking away from our drawing, capturing what we think we remember (but that our brain has ultimately just reduced to a much simpler state). You absolutely must look at your reference image almost constantly, refraining from relying on your memory. Look away only long enough to capture a specific form or mark based on what you saw from your reference, then go back to looking at it to determine the next piece you wish to transfer, and how it exists in 3D space.

All in all, you're moving in the right direction but you have a ways to go and more room for improvement. Part of this is just a matter of practice, but there are a number of key things you need to remember to apply with each and every drawing.

Next Steps:

Please submit an additional 5 animal constructions, with the same restrictions as the previous set (in terms of only doing 1 per day).

When finished, reply to this critique with your revisions.
1:46 AM, Friday April 16th 2021

You seemed to harp on the wolf and the goat a bit. Were the other constructions similarly lacking or do you notice that I struggle more with quadrapeds?

Also another question regarding the leg construction with "sausages". Do they always have to be "perfect" sausages? In the wolf demo you use different shapes to build up the legs (i.e. the ends are different sizes) and similarly, with the sample dog digram the sizes are different on the ends. Is the focus here not to have bowing in the center of the mass (like an ellipse)? Or are we supposed to use "perfect" sausages that have spheres at their ends and maintain the same thickness throughout? This has been a very confusing aspect of this lesson for me.

With the additional mass designs, I envisioned them as clay, so I designed the silhouette with the shape I needed. I guess this is incorrect and instead I need to think of them of being more solid and not as pliable? Or filled with water?

Finally, is it possible to get feedback prior to the full submission of 5 animals? I feel that it would be better for me to get feedback earlier rather than spending time doing things wrong repeatedly and not realizing it.

5:03 AM, Friday April 16th 2021

I focused on those constructions because they were the examples that best demonstrated the issues for the purposes of highlighting them to you. Every submission is a body of work that provides me with a range of circumstances. I don't expect to see the same mistakes in every single piece, because not every single subject will challenge you in the same way. All I can say is that the issues I focused on came up more clearly and distinctly in the quadrupeds I focused on.

So the tricky thing about Drawabox is that it is a course that is continually adapting, changing and evolving. As I critique thousands of submissions over the course of years, I'm constantly learning how to better frame and explain concepts that have to be translated from my own somewhat ephemeral understanding. It's putting into words what a normal person who just draws for a living doesn't necessarily have to qualify - reverse engineering what I learned implicitly, so I could explain it to others. As such, approaches change, and things become more succinct over time. Unfortunately, that also means that some diagrams and demos gradually become less perfect in their representation of the particular techniques.

Until more recently, I haven't really had any opportunity to overhaul everything to bring it all back to a level of consistency - at least, not until I was able to start focusing on Drawabox on a more full-time basis. Now that I am, I'm working on a full overhaul of the course and am currently working through Lesson 1. My intent is to bring everything to what my current approach focuses upon.

Until I'm able to complete that effort, students have to deal with some demonstrations that are more up to date, and others that are less so. Students receiving official critiques are at a significant advantage, since my critiques will always reflect my most current approaches. For example, focusing on the sausage method - which does indeed focus on each sausage reflecting the characteristics of "simple" sausages (two equally sized spheres connected by a tube of consistent width, as shown in this diagram). Not all demos show its use, however, at the moment, but they're still valuable in other ways. Some demos are pretty close, but as you noted, may be a little off because when creating them, this wasn't one of my top priorities at the time.

For the additional masses, I think the different comparisons vary depending on the person. To me, a lump of soft clay is a pretty good approximation, because it's going to respond to external pressure and contact - it's not going to have depressions in it unless there is something to make them. But thinking of them more like a waterballoon may also work better. Either way, the explanation I provided in my original critique is what you'll want to focus on - where I talked about the mass wanting to stick to a simple silhouette (composed only of outward curves), and being forced to develop inward curves only when something else presses upon it.

It comes down to following strict rules about where you're allowing inward curves (complexity) and where you're sticking to outward curves (simplicity).

As to your last question, unfortunately I simply don't have the bandwidth for that. This course offers feedback as cheaply as it does, with free revisions and all, because the onus is entirely on the student to have to do a fair bit of work before they're able to receive feedback. That way when feedback is given, I am able to pick through a more substantial body of work that has a greater chance of highlighting key issues that need to be addressed - rather than going through one by one.

It may be inconvenient, but it doesn't do any harm for you to produce 5 drawings with the potential of repeating the same mistakes - aside from the time it will take to do so. Just do your best to take the feedback you've been given, and apply it to the absolute best of your ability.

3:01 AM, Friday April 23rd 2021

Here are my redraws (round 2): https://imgur.com/a/79q3Oxk

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.
Faber Castell PITT Artist Pens

Faber Castell PITT Artist Pens

Like the Staedtlers, these also come in a set of multiple weights - the ones we use are F. One useful thing in these sets however (if you can't find the pens individually) is that some of the sets come with a brush pen (the B size). These can be helpful in filling out big black areas.

Still, I'd recommend buying these in person if you can, at a proper art supply store. They'll generally let you buy them individually, and also test them out beforehand to weed out any duds.

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