Starting with your form intersections, it's at this lesson that this exercise really ends up showing its value. That is to say, when we assign it back in Lesson 2, it's really just to plant a seed - to give the student a task that will get the gears in their head turning. It plays an important role in that regard (although in the future we may reevaluate just how we handle this), but it definitely leaves a lot of students floundering, looking for explanations that simply won't make sense to them at that stage in the game. All we can do is give them some general information, and let them flail away.

Then, as they work through Lessons 3-5, they get more experience in thinking about how different forms can fit together and relate to one another in space - organic forms that aren't nearly as punishing as these clean-cut geometric forms - but it helps to develop their spatial reasoning skills to a point where, now, we can talk a little more about those intersections.

Overall, you're doing great with this exercise. There are some little hiccups - like those I've shown here, where I think you got confused as to how the box was meant to be oriented along the top, and along the bottom you accidentally reversed the curvature of your intersection lines with the cylinder - but as a whole you are demonstrating a solid grasp of how these forms intersect one another. I'm still going to share this diagram that I provide to students at this stage, but I think you already understand what's marked out there.

I do have one concern to call out however - based on what I'm seeing in your linework, I do not get the impression that you are applying all three stages of the ghosting method as stringently here as you could. While it's subtle (and I mean really subtle), I can see little touches of hesitation in your line, and I do not see the usual use of marking out start/end points that are generally employed in the planning stage when drawing a straight line. Remember - the ghosting method, and its entire principle is integral to the course, and that approach of making decisions ahead of time is something that actually plays a greater role in this lesson in particular, in a way that we'll discuss shortly.

Moving onto the meat of the lesson, this one focuses heavily on the concept of precision, much moreso than past lessons. Lessons 3-5 have us working in an inside-out, reactive fashion, where we're never really wrong (as long as we're respecting the 3D nature of what we're building up). We may draw a ribcage too big, but that simply means our result is going to have a bigger chest, and that we may move other things out accordingly. But there's no clear separation between good/bad, or correct/incorrect, as long as you're following those principles of construction. Here, we take a different turn, and start to actually look at working from outside-in, planning things out and making decisions ahead of time.

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. You are definitely making use of the subdivisions when it comes to the constructions themselves, but there are a lot of areas where your work does not employ concepts shared in the lesson that definitely would have helped you get much more out of the exercises.

The first of these is a matter of how you employed the orthographic plan/proportional study - that is, where we look at our object from one side, and draw a two dimensional plan of how it occupies that space, which was introduced here in the computer mouse demo. With some simpler objects this isn't strictly necessary, but as our objects become more complex, there's a lot to be gained from establishing the plan from one side, or even multiple sides.

In this object you did end up creating an orthographic plan in the top right, but the way in which you approached it didn't really give you nearly as much useful information as it could have. As shown here we can use subdivision to find and establish specific positions for any major landmarks in the structure. Specifically, I first subdivided the horizontal axis into thirds, and found that the apex of the shape fell very close to the 2/3 mark - close enough that I can simply choose to position that landmark at 2/3 down the width of the structure, giving me a very specific place to put it in my 3D construction. The height was a little more complicated - I split it into thirds, and the subdivided it a bit more, and found that another landmark (where the shape begins to taper) is 5/12 down the height of the structure. Again, this information can then be used to create a precise construction, rather than approximating and eyeballing it all the way through.

I cannot stress this enough - it's not about finding the perfect fraction. For example, you might find that a particular landmark sits 39/50ths down one dimension of the volume, but that's really close to 4/5ths and in most situations it won't make much of a difference to round it up, giving us a much easier circumstance. What matters most is that this decision is made ahead of time. We want to make as many decisions up-front as we can, rather than making them as we draw. Just as with the use of the ghosting method, we want to break things up into steps as much as possible, so we only have a limited scope to worry about for every individual action we take.

That's what allows us to invest our time towards one specific goal, rather than trying to do a dozen things at once, and doing none of them all that well.

There are a lot of constructions in your homework here where, to varying degrees, you rely on drawing just from observation, rather than building things up step by step. You'll lay down the initial bounding box, and subdivide it, but you'll allow yourself to draw certain parts by eye. For example, this lighter. The closed version is well done - you subdivided it appropriately, and even rounded out the corners afterwards. The open version however, has this entire contraption drawn by eye. You didn't lay down a basic box form, or a basic cylinder for the wheel. In approaching it this way, you effectively did everything correctly until you hit a threshold where you decided that was enough, and then slid back away from the principles of the course.

Another drawing of interest is this remote. There are a few issues with it:

• I noticed that you did not take any steps to establish a consistent spacing for the buttons, both between the buttons themselves, as well as to the far left and far right. To illustrate what I mean, I've added some coloured areas to the drawing to show different areas that should, in 3D space, be equal in size. For the red ones (which define the margin at either side of the button area), you could establish one side, then mirror it across the center of the remote as demonstrated here). For the others, you'd need to create a grid and subdivide it to achieve your desired spacing. Here you appear not to have made any attempt at maintaining even spacing.

• Moreover, I noticed that you did not establish any actual center line down the length of the remote, so that big On/Off button is not necessarily centered either.

Continuing on, I can see that you neglected to adhere to this instruction, which stated that you should not be switching the type of pen you're using. It's pretty clear from your work that you used a lighter/thinner pen for the initial bounding box and subdivision lines, and then traced back over it with a thicker pen as you progressed through the constructional progress.

Another issue I noticed was that, aside from rounding sharp corners, when dealing with curves you appear not to have applied anything from this section, opting instead to just draw the curves directly, resulting in structures that appeared very flat. We can see an example of this throughout this chair. Looking at the legs of the chair, I threw together this quick demonstration of how you might build a structure that tapers down and then widens, then tapers down again. Note that in the last step I faded out the linework from the previous ones. This was only to make the last step, where we add the curved line to the structure easier to see. Your own drawing would of coures have a lot of lines, but that's really the nature of this lesson.

Now I think it's very clear that you underestimated just how demanding this lesson is, and really did not invest as much time as many of these constructions demanded of you. I did consider assigning a full redo, but I will assign revisions instead - but do be sure to give each of these as much time as they require of you. That will likely mean spreading each individual construction across several sittings.