Whew, it's been a while since I've gotten one of these. Generally speaking when I critique this challenge in particular, I actually tend to focus a lot more on concepts that are outside of the scope of this course - namely, design and how we think about the choices we make when deciding what to draw rather than how. Honestly your work here demonstrates an understanding of those design concepts that are much further developed than most students who've only recently finished the course, but I can think of a few things to call your attention to.
Before we get to that though, I did want to point out that when it comes to the constructional aspect of your chests, most of these are very well done, but there are a number that seem to make some logical/spatial leaps from the initial box structure to complexity that isn't strictly supported by that box structure - in other words, skipping steps. That is less of a problem here than it would have been in, say, lessons 6 or 7, but given that it is still a part of this course, remember that construction is a valuable exercise - a process that has us thinking through how we get from A to Z (A being the simpler state of a basic primitive, Z being the final complex construction, and B through Y being the various intermediary steps as we carve into our forms to gradually build up that complexity. This is what helps the exercise of constructional drawing to help hone our understanding of 3D space, so that we can more naturally jump straight into a more detailed sketch with minimal supporting construction, because of the training our brain has had in understanding those relationships.
I say that it's less of a problem here largely because constructional drawing isn't the point of this challenge, but since you were generally starting with primitives per the instructions, we don't want to form the disconnect where this becomes an appropriate use of the exercise in other contexts. For that purpose, be sure that each step builds directly on what was there before it.
Continuing onto more design considerations, I was by and large really pleased to see that you frequently considered design elements not just as being decorative, but also considering how they physically impact what you're designing. After all, it's not just about what makes things pretty - in order for a design to be believable, we need to think about how it actually fits together, how it's held together, how the different elements not only solve design problems, but what they might further contribute to the problem to be solved.
A good example of this is the thickness of the brackets/bracing here on 75. Many students will simply think in terms of a flat piece of metal with no thickness to it - but considering that thickness as you did here gives the construction as a whole a greater sense of depth, separating the structure out. Funnily enough, this is the same kind of thing people suggest when it comes to minecraft, of all things - beginners will create very flat houses where everything in a wall is at the same level of depth, while those who are more experienced will incorporate pieces that are set further back, or further forward, to create more interest and complexity.
Another similar consideration is how the different pieces are attached to one another. So in the same example, you've got rivets, which is indeed a common way to secure that bracing to a wooden chest. But there is certainly a difference between thinking of them as decorative elements, and actually in your mind approaching it as though you are in a given context (a world or time with access to certain kinds of technologies/skills) and you are actually piecing this thing together. What suggests here that it's probably more a matter of decoration rather than intentional problem solving is that we are less clear on how the handle to the side is secured.
That isn't inherently a mistake, though - your design contains rivets so one can very easily assume that rivets are used here as well. The same details don't need to cover the entirety of a design (this can actually work against principles of composition where we do want certain areas to be more detailed, and others to be less detailed so as to give the viewer areas of interest and areas of rest), but my purpose here in calling it out is in terms of getting at what you're thinking about as you work through the process. As you were drawing these, were those details largely decorative - things you could throw on there to fill the space - or did they come from a logical place. Logically working through these problems are precisely how we can come up with an array of details to fill out a design, often keeping us from ever having to grasp for more superfluous elements to fill things out.
Looking at 87 as another example, I noted some things down here directly on your drawing. I noted some sections where the thickness/depth wasn't conveyed, as well as some suggestions for areas where we can ask ourselves more questions about the object and how it's constructed. For example, the horns are a really nice touch, but because they are a fundamentally different material from the wood of those planks, it would have to be secured in some fashion. You solved that problem partially by creating a ring around it, but then that leads to the question of how is the ring secured.
The decorative coins are also a nice touch, but they lead to similar considerations - the bracing needs to be attached somehow as we discussed before, and so the coins are likely as a result to be aligned with the planks being secured. We would of course never actually have thought about it without first considering these more mundane points.
At the end of the day, the best way to push and explore a design is by asking yourself questions - and hopefully those questions will lead to more questions, and every one will invite answers that can serve as details where those details are needed. You certainly don't need to solve every problem, but usually what students struggle with is figuring out both what details to add (something they tend to be more conscious of), and how to keep those thematically and logically consistent across the set - so for example, keeping the context of the world/time in which it's made, and what technology they might have access to, in mind. Chest lids are often made of these separate slats and bound together with metal braces because they didn't necessarily have the ability to shape and bend wood as may be possible now. So, keeping that context in mind allows us to make choices that anchor the object itself to the world it's from.
Anyway, I've rambled a lot, as is fairly common for critiques of this challenge. Design is just such an expansive topic, and one that can really be a pleasure to explore. So, I hope I've laid out some things for you to think about! All in all though, you've definitely demonstrated a greater propensity for design than most tackling this exercise, but there is always room to refine how you approach it.
I'll go ahead and mark this challenge as complete.
Here we're getting into the subjective - Gerald Brom is one of my favourite artists (and a pretty fantastic novelist!). That said, if I recommended art books just for the beautiful images contained therein, my list of recommendations would be miles long.
The reason this book is close to my heart is because of its introduction, where Brom goes explains in detail just how he went from being an army brat to one of the most highly respected dark fantasy artists in the world today. I believe that one's work is flavoured by their life's experiences, and discovering the roots from which other artists hail can help give one perspective on their own beginnings, and perhaps their eventual destination as well.
This website uses cookies. You can read more about what we do with them, read our privacy policy.
