Just as a quick reminder (and I'm saying this before having looked at your work, so don't read too much into it), it's best that self critique is not included in your submission - just to avoid situations where you might say one thing, but your work suggests another. As a rule, I always follow what the work tells me, though if a student is claiming something else it can make it a little... awkward. I elaborate on this a bit further in this video from Lesson 0.

So! Jumping right in with your cylinders around arbitrary minor axes, for the most part you're handling this well, although I do have a few important points to call out:

• In the assignment section for this part of the challenge, I requested that students be sure to vary their rates of foreshortening. While you've done this a little, it's not a ton - almost as though the variation that did occur was more of a happy accident, rather than being entirely intentional. Just be sure to pay closer attention to the instructions in this regard.

• While I'm not seeing the usual start/end points for your side edges that accompanies proper use of the ghosting method, your linework - specifically the side edges - is really good. Like, exceptionally straight and smooth. That said, when it comes to your ellipses, it's decidedly less consistent. If it so happens that you're not consistently using the ghosting method, that would definitely be something you should be doing for all freehanded structural marks - be they straight lines, curves, or ellipses - throughout this course.

• I also noticed that you seemed to stop checking the alignment of your ellipses from 136 to 150. I can't really think of any reason as to why you'd do this short of just forgetting, but this does suggest to me that you might need to take a bit more care in how closely you're applying the instructions throughout your work.

• As to the point about your first ellipses sometimes being misaligned, for the purposes of this challenge, you would want to align to the original minor axis (the line that was drawn at the start). Remember - these are exercises. There's no value in 150 good cylinders. The value is in what you gain in the process, in establishing a clear goal for what you're trying to achieve with each mark, and assessing how far off you were from achieving it and how your approach could be adjusted to fix the issues that come up more regularly.

Now, one point I did want to mention is that the reason I ask students to incorporate lots of variation in their rates of foreshortening is that there's a concept in perspective that some students pick up on throughout the work (often on an instinctual but not quite conscious level), and I want to give them the opportunity to do so, since things learned in such a way tend to stick better than the things we're simply told.

It about the relationship between the two shifts our ellipses undergo as we slide from one end of the ellipse to the other:

• The shift in scale, where the far end gets smaller in its overall scale

• The shift in degree, where the far end gets proportionally wider

Both of these shifts are manifestations of foreshortening, the visual sign that tells the viewer how much of its length is plain to see on the page as a two dimensional measurement, and how much exists in the "unseen" dimension of depth. Because they represent the same thing, the two shifts need to operate roughly in tandem, otherwise something will look "off" to the viewer.

I did notice a couple spots where you did push the foreshortening but strayed from maintaining this consistent relationship - for example, 89 and 71, where the degree remains roughly the same from one end to the other. This isn't a problem, since I didn't explain this in the notes. Also, given the relative rarity of cases of more dramatic foreshortening, I was working from a relatively limited sample size. Figured it would be best to explain the concept anyway.

Continuing onto your cylinders in boxes, your work here is by and large done quite well. This exercise is really all about helping develop students' understanding of how to construct boxes which feature two opposite faces which are proportionally square, regardless of how the form is oriented in space. We do this not by memorizing every possible configuration, but rather by continuing to develop your subconscious understanding of space through repetition, and through analysis (by way of the line extensions).

Where the box challenge's line extensions helped to develop a stronger sense of how to achieve more consistent convergences in our lines, here we add three more lines for each ellipse: the minor axis, and the two contact point lines. In checking how far off these are from converging towards the box's own vanishing points, we can see how far off we were from having the ellipse represent a circle in 3D space, and in turn how far off we were from having the plane that encloses it from representing a square.

In applying the error checking here (admittedly more consistently than the previous section), you've given yourself ample opportunity to adjust your approach and develop your instinctual grasp of how to alter the way in which you draw your boxes so as to maintain those proportions, regardless of the orientation of the form. There's certainly more room for improvement on this front, as is expected, but as it stands you should be well equipped to tackle Lesson 6.

I'll go ahead and mark this challenge as complete.