Jumping right in with your form intersections, in regards to what we're expecting at this stage (which is not the last time the form intersections come up in the course, so at this point we're really only expecting students to be comfortable with intersections involving flat surfaces, and to still be uncertain when they include curving surfaces), you are doing extremely well. There are still some issues, but you're demonstrating that you're most of the way there, with a lot of the more complex intersections being correct or pretty close to it.

I did note down a number of issues directly on your work, but as a whole you're doing well enough that I expect this stuff to continue to come together, the more we practice our constructional drawing exercises. That said, I do have some additional advice on how to think about this - advice I can already see a fair bit of understanding of, but that would benefit from additional reinforcement.

Basically it comes down to the fact that intersections occur between two distinct surfaces. An intersection might occur across many surfaces and forms, at any given point, it's always between two surfaces at a time. While we may be tempted to focus on the nature of those forms as being curved or flat (which itself isn't accurate since plenty of forms feature both curving and flat surfaces, or can curve in many different directions as spheres do), it is integral that we focus on the specific forms themselves, and how they flow through space in that specific situation, which helps us decide things like in what direction something should curve, and whether the curve should be more aggressive in that curvature, or more shallow, depending on the other surface that is cutting into it and how it is angled.

This diagram strives to demonstrate this, by showing the way in which the different planes of the box intersect takes us from thinking about the infinite possible slices one can take of the sphere, and reduces it to just the two that align with the faces of the box that are cutting into it. It also attempts to frame a rounded surface by depicting it as a gradual transition between two flat surfaces, whereas a hard edge jumps from one to the other immediately (which is also why a hard edge results in a corner for our intersection line, whereas a rounded surface will spread that shift in trajectories over a longer space.

Anyway, keep at it, and we'll be looking at this again in Lesson 7, but as a whole I'm very pleased with your progress in regards to this exercise, and the development of your spatial reasoning skills that it demonstrates.

Continuing onto your object constructions, your homework here shows a great deal of care and patience, as well as clear growth in your understanding of the concepts this lesson focuses upon, which comes down largely to precision and how we can increase it, and thereby our control over the resulting object we construct. Precision is often conflated with accuracy, but they're actually two different things (at least insofar as I use the terms here). Where accuracy speaks to how close you were to executing the mark you intended to, precision actually has nothing to do with putting the mark down on the page. It's about the steps you take beforehand to declare those intentions.

So for example, if we look at the ghosting method, when going through the planning phase of a straight line, we can place a start/end point down. This increases the precision of our drawing, by declaring what we intend to do. From there the mark may miss those points, or it may nail them, it may overshoot, or whatever else - but prior to any of that, we have declared our intent, explaining our thought process, and in so doing, ensuring that we ourselves are acting on that clearly defined intent, rather than just putting marks down and then figuring things out as we go.

In our constructions here, we build up precision primarily through the use of the subdivisions. These allow us to meaningfully study the proportions of our intended object in two dimensions with an orthographic study, then apply those same proportions to the object in three dimensions.

Throughout the entire homework set, it's fair to say that you've made solid use of orthographic plans, but it is the manner in which you've used them, and the extent to which you've pushed them (in terms of pinning down more landmarks, and making smarter choices in which landmarks to define) that has really grown over the course of the lesson's assignments. With the water bottle, arguably you've largely defined enough in your plans to lay out the major elements of the structure. Not everything was pinned down - for example, the thickness of the handle is left to be approximated by eye, but that thickness isn't critical to any other part of the structure, and so whether or not we feel we need it to be a particular given thickness is really up to the person drawing, and what needs they're attempting to meet. We can say something similar about the point where the cap and the body of the bottle meet - it's not defined in specific terms, and so the body could be longer or shorter depending on how you intend to apply that information in the 3D construction, but again - not critical problems, due to the nature of the object.

You do however demonstrate more and more patience and care, and frankly willingness to dive into the decisions more deeply, the further you get into the set, and while there are later ones like the arcade stick at the end (is that a mayflash? I don't know anything about them, but one of my TAs was curious if he could identify), it's much clearer to me that you're making more concrete decisions on which steps to take.

As a whole, you've done a fantastic job here, and I genuinely have no complaints. Keep up the fantastic work, and consider this lesson complete.