Before I jump into the critique, I'll answer your questions:

  • Every drawing we do in this course is an exercise. The drawings of actual objects themselves, are no different - the focus is not actually on matching the reference perfectly, but rather to use it as a source of 3D information, to inform every choice we make as we build upon our existing structure. At its core, each exercise is like a three dimensional spatial puzzle - we know what direction we're heading in (approximating the structure in the reference image), and we know that we move forward by adding new forms to our construction, considering how they exist in 3D space, and how they relate to the existing structure. It is the process of adding new forms, and thinking about how they relate to the other forms around them, that pushes our brain to gradually rewire the manner in which it perceives the world that exists beyond the page. If we happen to make mistakes - misjudge proportions, drawing forms too large or too small, etc. - then that's entirely fine, and does not inhibit the exercise (and so white-out or any attempt at correcting the perceived mistake would be inappropriate). If, however, we actually make a mistake on the construction level of things, correcting it would also be incorrect, because no individual drawing is meant to be a performance. They are all exercises - mistakes are expected. We make them, we notice them, and we learn from them, trying not to make them again in the next drawing.

  • The drawings we're doing in this course are inherently going to end up visually distracting. Some insects - like the mayfly - have a lot of complexity on their thoraxes, where different pieces of segmentation/carapace layer on top of one another. If we're drawing every such form in its entirety (as you can see being done on the shrimp and lobster informal demos), clutter is inevitable. It can be somewhat addressed, to a point, with use of line weight (focusing that line weight on the specific, localized areas where forms overlap one another as shown with these two overlapping leaves), or through controlled use of cast shadows, but at the end of the day, these constructional drawings will be cluttered. Again, being that they're just exercises, that's not really a problem for us here.

  • The previous point goes over why clutter isn't really a big deal - but for the purposes of patterns/designs on our insects' bodies, there's nothing wrong with just ignoring them altogether. Our drawings here - both in construction and in texture - focus largely on capturing and conveying information that exists in 3D space, and for the purposes of these exercises, there isn't any benefit to drawing spots or capturing local colour. On the other hand, doing so can actually get in the way. Given that we're working with strictly black and white, there are limitations on what information we can actually capture and convey consistently and clearly to the viewer. Generally given these restrictions, it is best to focus our use of solid black only on cast shadow shapes, because that's what the viewer is most likely to expect and assume when they see them. In the case of your hercules beetle, you've got a lot more going on - including a lot of form shading, which as discussed here, should not be included in our drawings for this course. While you are still largely focusing on the shadows each textural form would cast, mixing in form shading suggests that you are at least in part focusing more on "decorating" your drawing (an arbitrary pursuit of making a drawing more visually pleasing), which is not entirely suitable for what we're doing here. What we're doing in this course can be broken into two distinct sections - construction and texture - and they both focus on the same concept. With construction we're communicating to the viewer what they need to know to understand how they might manipulate this object with their hands, were it in front of them. With texture, we're communicating to the viewer what they need to know to understand what it'd feel like to run their fingers over the object's various surfaces. Both of these focus on communicating three dimensional information. Both sections have specific jobs to accomplish, and focusing this rather than the more arbitrary pursuit of making a drawing look nice and presentable is best for the purposes of these exercises. By this, you'd be totally okay with leaving the butterfly's wings blank. Not because of the clutter, but because the pattern is not relevant to these exercises.

  • For the ant lion, it all comes back again to the fact that textures are made up of forms - and what we're doing here requires us to focus on the specific forms that are present, one at a time, considering how those textural forms relate to the surfaces around them, and drawing specific cast shadow shapes which define that spatial relationship. What you've done here speaks more to trying to capture a general impression of the texture you perceived in the reference image, but not of the specific forms. Of course, in these exercises textural detail is optional - but if you do choose to add it, in a case like this it would be extremely time consuming, to focus in on every little textural form. It would be a lot like the fried chicken texture from the texture analysis exercise demonstration, where all the little bits are grouped into "clumps" (our textural forms), and then the specific shadows they cast on their surroundings are determined through a mixture of observation, and of understanding the forms we perceive in that reference image.

  • Your last question comes back to the fact that we are not worried about composition or focal areas in these exercises - we are not creating images with the intent of having them look nice. I can certainly understand the desire to put some time and effort towards having what you've invested time into look good, but ultimately doing so distracts us and pulls important resources away from the core focus of the activity: to mush forms together, to consider how they relate to one another in 3D space, and to define those spatial relationships. Nothing more. While there is some value in going beyond just drawing an object floating in a void, it all comes back to that core focus - so establishing the outline of the shadow the object may cast upon the ground on which it sits can be very useful because it helps create a relationship between the object and the ground. If an insect were sitting upon a branch, then constructing that branch may be worthwhile because it gives context to the positioning of the insect's legs. It all comes back to that core goal, and deciding what should and shouldn't be included based on it.

At this point, I've already written the equivalent of one and a half critiques, so I'm going to keep the rest of my feedback fairly brief. As a whole, you've done a great job - despite the fact that many of your questions speak to your attention being somewhat split between the core purpose of these exercises, and decoration/composition/visual appeal (all things that this course does not touch upon), you did commit enough of your attention to explore each construction in its entirety.

Where many students have a tendency to jump back and forth between working in 3D space (manipulating forms in three dimensions) and working in 2D space (adding one-off marks or partial flat shapes), you largely stay firmly in three dimensions, and your constructions suggest a strong, well developing set of spatial reasoning skills.

There are a few small places where you take some shortcuts, mostly when adding structures to the legs (as shown here), but largely you're doing a good job of focusing on the use of sausage segments and defining the joint between those segments. Here are some quick demos on how you can approach building on top of them, once that basic armature has been laid down:

And here are some demos of this principle in action:

The sausage method, and this approach to building on top of the resulting structure, will continue to be very useful throughout the next lesson as well.

The only other point of concern is the focus on decoration, which I already addressed above when answering your questions. As a whole, I am very pleased with how you're approaching these constructions, and despite my lengthy explanations above, I do feel that you understood the core purpose of these exercises quite well. Any further concerns seemed to exist on top, and did not interfere with your ability to digest and apply the concepts from the course.

Before I finish off this critique I will say this - while Drawabox purposely does not get into matters of composition, rendering, and presentation, these are concepts that are taught in the Dynamic Sketching course that Drawabox was based upon. I had to decide what I wanted to strip away, and what I wanted to focus upon, and I ultimately decided to position Drawabox in such a way that it arms students with what they need to make the best use of courses like Dynamic Sketching, as it did rely on students' spatial reasoning skills, and when I took it I saw many of my peers struggling with that area, which got in the way of their ability to apply the wealth of other information the course provided.

So, if you are able, I would certainly recommend taking Dynamic Sketching when you're done with Drawabox. It's not a cheap course by any stretch (if I remember correctly, most places offer it for $800), but if you're aiming for a career that involves drawing and visual communication, I highly recommend it. It can be taken online from Peter Han (from whom I learned in person at Concept Design Academy), and from CG Master Academy. Currently with the pandemic making in-person classes tricky, Concept Design Academy also offers it online.

Anyway, I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete. Keep up the great work.