## Lesson 3: Applying Construction to Plants

##### 1:21 AM, Wednesday June 8th 2022

So finished with lesson 3. There were some I liked how they came out. And of course appreciate the feedback to help get better. Thanks.

2 users agree
##### 1:35 PM, Wednesday June 8th 2022 edited at 3:18 PM, Jun 11th 2022

tl;dr While there are lines that lack confidence or that were extended later on, your drawings suggest a good understanding constructional processes and adhering to previous decisions. Some drawings (or pieces of) lack a sense of 3D (i.e. hibiscus, chamomile, the cap of the king mushroom, and the arrows exercise) which I think may come from a resistance to bending curves more. Try taking more risks, even if they do not turn out how you expected.

I would like to see you draw two more pages of plants unrelated to those presented by Uncomfortable to demonstrate your ability to apply constructional drawing on your own.

I would also like you to revisit the arrow exercise and have segments of the arrow overlap in 3D space between the viewer and the background. They twist a lot, but generally follow a linear pattern.

Below you will find the unedited notes that I made when looking at your work.

Co-lord44 Feedback Notes

Arrows:

The arrows have good complete shape

Lines appear in some areas to be wobbly or drawn as separate lines

(Try to keep them fluid/confident, even if inaccurate)

Arrows ofen lack depth, they move laterally but don't

give the sense that they are pushing out of the page or pulling

into the page. I think this is because of an inconsistent changing

between the space between arrow segments and the change in arrow

size.

Leafs:

Outlines are at times are thick at the wrong places

I would avoid adding branch stems to the leafs for this exercise.

the point of the exercise is to make flowing three dimensional

planes.

Except for the eucalyptes leaf, most of your leaves appear flat.

I suggest twisting them or bending them once or twice, similar

to what we did with the arrows exercise.

At times the thick outlines make it difficult to tell how

much you stuck to the construction process. That said,

the holly leaf has a clear outline.

Branches:

Most ellipses adhere to the minor axis that was set initially

Ellipses have a solid change in degree

In a few of the branches, the ellipses might be too close together.

They may be a little short, I would suggest testing yourself by

making them longer and try to make harder turns with the flow

of the branches.

German Chamomile:

Good job following the flow of the petals that you initially drew

/not going beyond your previous decisions.

Good addition of the contour lines to the center of the flower.

Some of the petals can feel a little stiff, this may be a personal

preference but I suggest adding a small curve, even to the flow lines

which in the pictures are straight.

King Trump of Mushroom:

The base mostly follows the construction process, there are

ellipses that form the base and contours, but I feel like you are

missing the flow of the body of the mushroom to start, even if

it is a straight line it can help place the minor axes of your

contour ellipses.

The construction seems a little foggy at the cap. Specifically,

the lowermost part on the drawing has an ellipse that does not

quite make sense to me as a viewer. I belive that it is part

of the closest protrusion of the cap, but it feels out of place

when the lateral sides of the cap are cross sections.

It suggests the bottom is flat, while the sides suggest a rounded

underbelly to the edges of the cap.

Hibiscus:

The flow of each petal is smooth, however the outlines of the petals

are in some areas lacking confidence or which appear to be made

of several strokes. Try to keep petal outlines to a single

smooth stroke, even if they are not accurate.

The petals are each about the same size and have roughly the same

area on either side of the flow, which causes the flower to appear

flat or as if it were viewed from a top-down view, which I suspect

was not your intention.

Cactus:

Good solid form that has a clear construction.

I don't have any other feedback that wouldn't just be me nitpicking.

Pitcher Plant:

Don't be afraid of taking up the whole page, some of the details

are lost by drawing them this small.

The leaf on what I'm going to call the 'head' of the pitcher plant

has a good sense of 3D.

The 'tail' of the pitcher plant has a slightly inconsistent

placement of contour ellipses (the tip has a couple too close

while the further section has them too far away. I think this

may have contributed to the wobbly lines compared to the main

body of the plant.

Potato Plant:

There is a great shadow at the base of the plant, but it is

unclear what is causing those shadows. There are a few leaves

behind the shadow spot but nothing in front that would create

that gap.

There are several lines (flows and outlines of leaves) where

a decision was overruled by adding to the line or extending it later.

As we learned in lesson 3, it is okay to make mistakes, but do not

try to correct them. This is a learning experience, not fridge art.

Calla Lily

The foreground edge with crosshatching is puzzling/I am not sure

why there is crosshatching or what it represents.

Good Flow and the base of the stem as solid construction applied.

The tip of the petal gets a little cluttered, making it difficult

to tell what it looks like in 3D.

Though unrelated to lesson 3, the shading of the furthest part

of the petal is better represented through shapes, not outlines.

Apricot

The shading is incomplete/the sharp edge along the contour line

is inconsistent with how light reflects off of a rounded surface.

Additionally, the leaf has two shaded islands, which contradicts

the straight contour lines of the leaf.

Next Steps:

I would like to see you draw two more pages of plants unrelated to those presented by Uncomfortable to demonstrate your ability to apply constructional drawing on your own.

I would also like you to revisit the arrow exercise and have segments of the arrow overlap in 3D space between the viewer and the background. They twist a lot, but generally follow a linear pattern.

When finished, reply to this critique with your revisions.
edited at 3:18 PM, Jun 11th 2022
##### 2:29 AM, Saturday June 11th 2022

Thank you for the patience here are the revisions: https://imgur.com/a/K5jMI6e

##### 3:09 PM, Saturday June 11th 2022

Looks good! I like the contour lines you made in the indents of the blueberries and the branch on your clover is well constructed.

Keep up the good work in lesson 4!

This community member feels the lesson should be marked as complete, and 2 others agree. The student has earned their completion badge for this lesson and should feel confident in moving onto the next lesson.
##### 6:28 PM, Saturday June 11th 2022

Thanks and woot; onto leson 4!

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.

### PureRef

This is another one of those things that aren't sold through Amazon, so I don't get a commission on it - but it's just too good to leave out. PureRef is a fantastic piece of software that is both Windows and Mac compatible. It's used for collecting reference and compiling them into a moodboard. You can move them around freely, have them automatically arranged, zoom in/out and even scale/flip/rotate images as you please. If needed, you can also add little text notes.

When starting on a project, I'll often open it up and start dragging reference images off the internet onto the board. When I'm done, I'll save out a '.pur' file, which embeds all the images. They can get pretty big, but are way more convenient than hauling around folders full of separate images.

Did I mention you can get it for free? The developer allows you to pay whatever amount you want for it. They recommend \$5, but they'll allow you to take it for nothing. Really though, with software this versatile and polished, you really should throw them a few bucks if you pick it up. It's more than worth it.

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