Starting with your organic intersections, I can see that you're putting a fair bit of thought into how these forms ought to slump and sag over one another under the shared force of gravity, so in that regard you're doing a good job of thinking through their spatial relationships. One area where you do have room for improvement however in the use of cast shadows - the cast shadows you're putting down are generally alright, but my bigger concern is more the somewhat selective manner in which you apply them - not always ensuring that every form casts its own shadows. Remember - every single form exists in 3D space, and so each form will play its own role in occluding the light source, and thus casting a shadow on its surroundings. That is, onto the other forms around them, as well as onto the ground.

Continuing onto your animal constructions, there are two big points that stand out quite a bit here, which were called out in my feedback of your Lesson 4 work, but do not appear to reflect in your work here. It's not a common thing for students to intentionally ignore major points raised in past feedback - rather, being that the feedback is by necessity quite dense, sometimes students will overestimate their ability to remember what the feedback contained over longer periods of time, resulting in them charging forward and ultimately forgetting what was called out. Sometimes students need to review the feedback multiple times now and then, and others may find taking notes to summarize the feedback can give them something to have at hand while working through the next set of homework so they know what they need to be paying attention to. Ultimately it's each student's responsibility to do what they need in order to apply the feedback they receive, as discussed in this video from Lesson 0.

I should also mention that this kind of straying - even from the material shared in the lesson - is not entirely uncommon when it comes to Lesson 5 precisely because a lot of students get really excited to be able to draw something they love. That enthusiasm can have unexpected negative results, in that they make us eager to just get down to drawing, and in turn fail to invest time in the other areas that require it. These things happen sometimes.

Rather than canceling your submission and returning your credits to you, I feel going through with the critique is ultimately going be in your best interest, although I am not going to go on at length about points I've already called out, which are as follows:

• You frequently jump back and forth between working in 2D space and 3D space, opting in many cases to introduce flat, two dimensional shapes to your constructions by extending off the silhouettes of existing forms. While this does appear to a varying degree across many of your constructions, it stands out especially prominently here on this moose. I've highlighted the one-off individual strokes that were drawn without consideration to how they were defining a complete, fully self-enclosed form, in blue, and in red where you cut into the silhouettes of some of your forms.

• You've also been quite inconsistent in how you constructed your animals' legs, despite the fact that I did specifically stress that you should be using the sausage method in my last round of feedback (and I particularly stated that you'd be using this technique in Lesson 5 as well).

As a whole, it seems like you didn't do your part insofar as applying that feedback - so I'll leave you to go back over that feedback once again.

With that out of the way, there are two other points I wanted to address - these are more in the realm of normal kinds of issues that can come up when working through the lesson. The first of these is to do with how you're using your additional masses. With these additional masses, everything really comes down to the manner in which their shapes are designed. One thing that helps with the shape here is to think about how the mass would behave when existing first in the void of empty space, on its own. It all comes down to the silhouette of the mass - here, with nothing else to touch it, our mass would exist like a soft ball of meat or clay, made up only of outward curves. A simple circle for a silhouette.

Then, as it presses against an existing structure, the silhouette starts to get more complex. It forms inward curves wherever it makes contact, responding directly to the forms that are present. The silhouette is never random, of course - always changing in response to clear, defined structure. You can see this demonstrated in this diagram.

Now, it's important to note that there can definitely be a temptation to try and "fix" a mass whose silhouette was not designed to reflect these kinds of spatial relationships, and how the mass is meant to attach to the existing structure. Students will often try to do this by adding contour lines, similarly to the organic forms with contour curves exercise in Lesson 2. Unfortunately this tool really only serves to help make forms feel more three dimensional on their own, in isolation - they don't help to define how the different forms relate to one another. Additionally, it's important when using any tool to always first ask ourselves (before each stroke) what we're looking to get out of this new line, what job it's meant to accomplish, and how we can best approach the mark for it to do that job as well as it can. These kinds of contour lines tend to quickly suffer from diminishing returns, where the first might have a big impact, the second may have significantly less, and the third less than that - so always make sure that you're asking yourself those questions and considering what you're trying to accomplish. It's easy to fall into patterns of automatically applying certain tools in a particular fashion, and for our brains to take a back seat.

Now while what I've explained above isn't especially harmful, it's not uncommon to see cases where students default to slapping those contour curves on to "fix" a poorly designed silhouette, but in feeling like they can fix the issue afterwards, this can actually cause us to put less time into thinking about that silhouette design, making us more likely to make the mistake going forwards. So, for this purpose, I'd recommend in the future not using contour lines on your additional masses like this.

It is worth mentioning that there are different kinds of contour lines - while these which sit on the surface of a single form do not help establish how the form relates to the existing structure to which it is attaching, the kind introduced in the form intersections exercise, which define the joint between two forms, does establish a relationship between them. This would be used in a situation where the forms actually interpenetrate one another - but for the additional masses, it all comes down to the silhouette because it's a situation where one form is actually wrapping around the other.

So, circling back to placing our inward curves, outward curves, sharp corners and more gradual transitions in more specific, intentional places as we purposefully design the silhouettes of our additional masses, here's what it looks like in practice.

You'll also note that I take particular advantage of those masses at the hip and shoulder, which are basically simplified representations of those big engine muscles animals use to walk around and run. Being that they're physical elements there, I have the opportunity to extend my masses further down to press up against them, helping add complexity to my masses - but complexity with a purpose, and a reason for existing, rather than arbitrary complexity.

Continuing on, the other thing I wanted to discuss is head construction. Lesson 5 has a lot of different strategies for constructing heads, between the various demos. Given how the course has developed, and how I'm finding new, more effective ways for students to tackle certain problems. So not all the approaches shown are equal, but they do have their uses. As it stands, as explained at the top of the tiger demo page (here), the current approach that is the most generally useful, as well as the most meaningful in terms of these drawings all being exercises in spatial reasoning, is what you'll find here on the informal demos page.

There are a few key points to this approach:

• The specific shape of the eyesockets - the specific pentagonal shape allows for a nice wedge in which the muzzle can fit in between the sockets, as well as a flat edge across which we can lay the forehead area.

• This approach focuses heavily on everything fitting together - no arbitrary gaps or floating elements. This allows us to ensure all of the different pieces feel grounded against one another, like a three dimensional puzzle.

• We have to be mindful of how the marks we make are cuts along the curving surface of the cranial ball - working in individual strokes like this (rather than, say, drawing the eyesocket with an ellipse) helps a lot in reinforcing this idea of engaging with a 3D structure.

Try your best to employ this method when doing constructional drawing exercises using animals in the future, as closely as you can. Sometimes it seems like it's not a good fit for certain heads, but with a bit of finagling it can still apply pretty well. To demonstrate this for another student, I found the most banana-headed rhinoceros I could, and threw together this demo.

Now, I am going to ask you for a fairly extensive set of revisions below. For each construction, I want you to write the date of each session you spent on it, along with a rough estimate of how much time was spent during each session. Do not feel compelled to be finished with a construction within a single sitting - the complexity of the task is what dictates how long it should take, so it may be necessary to spread them across multiple sittings in order to uphold your responsibility of spending as much time as you require to construct each form, draw each shape, and execute each mark to the best of your current ability - along with going back over the feedback, identifying what it is you need to work on, observing your reference image frequently, and all that.