Overall this challenge targets two main things, albeit to varying degrees. While it tackles advanced constructional techniques (specifically relating to rotating the lids on a pivot), that's really more of a minor element that allows it to relate to the course's core focus. Where the treasure chest challenge really shines is by providing students an opportunity to explore design - specifically through the lens of prop design. Basically it gives me a chance to introduce students to the kind of problem solving strategies we can employ to explore and develop a design beyond what is obvious and shallow.

So that's what this critique will be focusing on, but before we get to that, I do want to note one thing. Students are absolutely welcome to use digital tools for this challenge, but it is very easy for students to let the tool do a lot more of the decision making for them. In turn, it results in sloppiness and rushing, which is why we don't allow it for the bulk of the course, as it would simply make providing feedback a lot harder, since those providing it would have to look through a lens already tainted by that rushing, having to distinguish between actual misunderstandings, and instances of sloppiness.

The thing to keep in mind though is that while this is a much greater risk to those at the beginning of the course, who haven't had the kind of mileage the course necessitates, it's still possible to fall into those issues if you're not to some degree aware of them. Basically, if you allow your tools to make decisions for you - no matter what tools they are - your work will suffer for it.

I'll give you a few examples of what I mean, although the best is actually the handwriting. Taking a look at this page, we can see that your brush settings appear to be actively working against you - it looks to me like you might have the stabilization up too high for writing. Drawing can be a little more forgiving, although it ultimately depends on the kinds of strokes - the ones we'd usually draw with our wrists due to the tight turns and stiff control that's required do not play nicely with stabilizers. You can actually think of your shoulder itself as being a stabilizer, albeit one you can engage/disengage as needed without having to change your brush settings and fall out of a flow state.

Another example on the same page is how the thickness of your strokes isn't consistent. Sometimes you've got thick lines along the silhouette of a form, sometimes the thicker line is internal to it. I run into this issue a lot in photoshop, since I tend to use the ability to click with a brush in one spot, and then shift-click in another to draw a line between them. This line doesn't just interpolate between the two positions though, it interpolates the pressure of the two points as well, which can be quite difficult to control.

These issues are entirely normal considering the tools you're using - but at the end of the day, they can be dealt with by changing the stabilization (or leaving it at a low enough level that'll accommodate everything else, and then rely more on your shoulder when you need a little more), and by considering where you want your line weight to be concentrated, and applying it in a more intentional manner rather than just settling on whatever the program gives you. All of this takes time - a lot of time - but on the flipside, these issues can impact my ability to provide you with useful feedback, as I have to look through the lens of those issues to actually zero in on the design choices you've been making.

Anyway, getting onto those design elements, I'm going to pick out a few of your chests to focus on, and we can look at what you approached well and how your approach to design can be pushed further.

Starting with 97 on this page, while I wouldn't say this design feels complete, I really like the direction in which it is going. The kinds of shape language you're using here, and the use of that large, extremely prominent hinge pivot on the back does a great deal to speak to the kind of world it might exist in - that is, more scifi or futuristic than fantasy/medieval.

The main thing I wanted to call out in regards to this one is that based on what I'm seeing, I don't believe it could actually fully close. This draw-over isn't entirely accurate (since that prominent back hinge is centered lower, the side panels would not be fully horizontal when closing - that's not inherently a problem, but I didn't factor it in here for the sake of simplicity), but it displays how the side structure and front panel of the lid appear not to have any gap between them, but in order to close, it would necessitate a gap at least as wide as the side walls of the container.

A lot of aspects of design come down to things like this - they're not always about aesthetics, but rather establishing that there is enough functional cohesion that it's not going to pull the viewer out of their suspension of disbelief. This issue probably wouldn't be a big deal if the container was stuck in an open position as a background element to an illustration, but if it was more central to the action, and especially if it had to close, it could be a problem. More than that, if this was a design being passed onto a 3D modeler, you'd be leaving them with the decision of how to make it work practically, and that should always be the designer's job.

On the flipside, there are of course aesthetic aspects to design. One of these comes down to creating a balance between the areas of detail, or interest, and the areas of rest, across a design. Basically areas where you've got a lot going on, which draws and pulls the eye towards it, and areas of rest which allow the viewer to casually linger without stressing out their brains. Keeping these in some form of balance helps - but it comes down to the question, well if my areas of interest aren't detailed enough to create a distinction between these two categories, how do I add more detail?

The key to that is asking questions - so for example, in the case of this container, that rear hinge is very cool, but it's still pretty simple. We can however ask ourselves, well how does the hinge physically work? What allows the lid to open and close from a mechanical standpoint? Right now what we can visibly see is the outer structure of the hinge, which appears to be a wheel with an inset that stops at a hole. Hinges have hinge pins though, the actual axle around which the lid would pivot. So, if we need a touch more detail, we can define the axle. This further reinforces the mechanical purpose of that element, while also helping you to add more detail where you need it.

Even the aesthetic can come back to the practical, and you'll find that the job of a designer is often to think about these seemingly unimportant, insignificant details of how everything fits together and works.

Continuing on, the next one I wanted to look at is number 60 here. Admittedly this one is very sloppy (and that makes it quite a bit more difficult to understand what you're trying to convey), but there are a number of elements I quite like about it. I like that you've added brackets to help explain how all of the boards are held together, and how there are bolts to connect them. I like the little bit of rope holding the board that's popping out on the side together with the structure (although it probably would need one on the other side as well in order to make sense).

I think one of the bigger weaknesses here is that, like many students, you're trying to rely on instincts that you don't yet have, to work faster. Impicit detailing is something we all see in our favourite works, and it's an extremely useful tool for conveying large amounts of information without creating an overly detailed mess. It actually relies a lot on the principles we use for texture, in that we can't lock ourselves in to drawing everything explicitly, so we have to use implicit techniques like cast shadows (or at least treating the partial outlines we draw as though they are cast shadows, the difference can be quite subtle when dealing with things that are fairly close together). The issue here is that you aren't taking the time to think through the kinds of objects you're building up. You're trying to convey them quickly, and that means pulling from knowledge you don't yet have in your head.

You have to actually take your time to get there - in order to work fast, we first have to work slow. In this case, we'd be taking the time to think about the nature of this pile, and what it might contain. The bulk of it is probably coins, which when piled together tend to create uneven stacks rather than amorphous blobs. And so you'll notice that in my redlining, while I too am sloppy (because I'm also working fast), the silhouette does have a "stepping" pattern to it, implying the fact that the coins have flat surfaces. I've also considered what other kinds of objects might be in there to break things up - a bracelet, maybe a precious stone, a goblet, a ring.

Along with making the chest more interesting, it also adds more narrative to the object - it ceases to just be something decorative, but whispers as to the stories it could tell. Whose bracelet was that? Who drank from that cup?

On a more basic note, you're generally pretty good with giving elements a sense of thickness, though I did notice that was lacking from some of your brackets. This is actually something a lot of students overlook. While I'm not concerned about that for you, I still felt it was worth calling out.

And of course, don't forget about your ever-important hinges. That chest opens and closes, but we can't actually see any suggestion of a mechanism that allows it to do so. Is it the most important thing in the world? Not really - but it's all about getting your brain used to thinking about the "hows" of things, so that in time, you fall into the habit of solving these very simple, common concerns without even having to think about it.

One last point for this one - since your intent here seems to have been to make the chest appear as though it was barely holding together, going with a slightly different overall structure for it would have helped push this further. Instead of a rigid box, we could go with something with more outward curves to convey that it's bulging against its restraints, as shown here. Of course, this may have been an angle you decided to take after you'd finished the underlying construction - while that speaks to the value of having some idea of what you're going for beforehand, I don't think there's anything wrong with drawing on top of that base structure and modifying it so it bulges outwards as you build out your design. If it were a constructional drawing exercise like those elsewhere in the course, we wouldn't do that - but every exercise has its goals that determine what rules we should be adhering to.

There's one last thing I wanted to quickly mention, but I'm about two hours into this critique so I'll keep to text for this one. It's not really a criticism anyway, it's more advice for thinking about design in your future work. A design of anything - a vehicle, a prop, a costume, a character - reflects the world in which it exists. Everything came into being in some fashion, even natural structures like mountains, trees, etc. - and I don't mean in a divine sense, I mean that nothing simply popped into existence. Mountains for instance are the product of tectonic plates shifting and driving up over one another, gorges are the result of millenia of erosion, and so forth. Everything is the result of the context in which it exists, and that influences which design elements might be suitable, and which might not, in order to maintain a cohesive reflection of the world a design occupies.

A student might draw a simple chest composed of 8 panels. 5 for the body (one for each wall and one for the base) and 3 for the lid (one for each side and then one curving over top). This might beg the question, well that curving lid - that's a pretty complex piece of woodworking, would the culture that built it necessarily know how to do that? Would the person for whom it was made be able to afford the additional labour cost if the technology was available? There is, after all, a reason most lids are made up of slats - they're much easier to cut and piece together.

Okay, so let's say we cut the curving lid into a series of boards. Well, how are they secured together? Fine, we'll add a metal bracket. How's the bracket secured? Adhesive or bolts/rivets, depending again on what is available and affordable.

Of course, you can go even further thinking about whose chest it is, how old and worn it is, and so forth - but at the end of the day, thinking about these things we're designing as living things that have gone from one form to another, that have been put together with different pieces, is the bread and butter of design. These are things you'll get used to thinking about and expanding upon with various strategies like the what-if approach I explain here on this video for Proko's channel, but for now you can focus on the following:

• How was it put together - What kind of technologies are available, what was used, and how, if at all, does that make this object different from other objects that serve a similar purpose in the world. If you're going against the grain of how this kind of thing is usually made, then there should be a concise reason for it that you can build off.

• What purpose is it meant to serve - Understanding what this design should achieve within the world in which it exists will help give you direction for your design choices.

• Who was it made for - Everything has a cost, and while making something "perfect" is usually not a great idea because it can undermine its believability, the nature of its imperfections (at least when it was made) might differ depending on who it was made for. Some would be much happier getting something rough but functional for cheap, others might have much higher standards.

• What has it been through - You don't have to tell yourself a whole story about where this thing has been, how it's been used, and so forth but you also shouldn't be completely vague. Giving a little thought to where the various scuffs, dings, gashes, and holes might have come from might not be immediately useful, but a few steps down the tree of questions you might find something that hooks up with one of those simple little answers, and gives you even more to expand upon in a meaningful way.

Anyway, I think I've spent at least two hours on this critique, if not more, so I'll leave it at that and mark this challenge as complete. As a side note, I think the designs for 85, 87, and 88 are by far your strongest in terms of taking your time and thinking through it all - didn't want to go through the whole critique without acknowledging them.