Congrats on completing the 250 cylinder challenge! I'll do my best to give you feedback so that you can improve.
Starting with cylinders around an arbitrary axis, first I'd like to point out that you've improve a lot in the confidence of your strokes throughout the set. When you started out you seemed less sure about the ellipses and lines and gained a lot of confidence as you progressed. You're also checking correctly which means you won't plateau when you get to "close enough" territory so keep it up! I just have a couple of suggestions, first you should try to vary the rates of foreshortening more as I can see the majority of the cylinders were more on the shallow side. Try and experiment with the extremes of foreshortening and see what happens. This happens in 2 ways, there's the shift in scale from one end to the other, where due to the convergence of the side edges the far end ends up smaller in its overall scale. Then there's the shift in degree, where the far end becomes wider proportionally than the end closer to the viewer. Finally if we take a look at 5, 82 and 126 we can see that the sides are essentially parallel. While this hasn't occurred that frequently I'll explain why it isn't possible for the sides to be parallel. The thing is, we do not actually control where the vanishing points should be. Rather, we control how our edges in 3D space are oriented, and it is that which controls the location of the vanishing points. Specifically, a vanishing point would only go to infinity if the edges it governs run perpendicular to the angle at which the viewer looks out into the world - basically, where those edges do not slant towards or away from them through the depth of the scene. Since we're rotating our cylinders randomly throughout this challenge, the chances that they'd align so perfectly is small enough to be avoided altogether - so in the future, if you aren't fully intentionally aligning a set of edges that specifically, be sure to include some visible convergence, even if it's only very slight.
Moving onto your boxed cylinders, unfortunately there's a major error with how you've gone about checking errors. If you take a look here https://drawabox.com/lesson/250cylinders/1/stage2check you will see that there are 6/8 lines extended from each side. You have checked the side + major axis for the cylinders which is great however you've forgotten to check the minor axis of the ellipses on the planes of the box or have drawn them going the wrong way. I've drawn out how it should have looked here so that you can understand what it should have looked like.
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.
If some of the line extensions are neglected, it undermines the purpose of the entire error analysis, and thus the exercise as a whole. 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).
Therefore I'll unfortunately be assigning a revision of 50 additional boxed cylinders with the error checking method applied correctly.If you have any questions or if anything was unclear please let me know!
Next Steps:
50 additional boxed cylinders
Vary the rate of foreshortening
Apply the error checking method correctly
Michael Hampton is one of my favourite figure drawing teachers, specifically because of how he approaches things from a basis of structure, which as you have probably noted from Drawabox, is a big priority for me. Gesture however is the opposite of structure however - they both exist at opposite ends of a spectrum, where structure promotes solidity and structure (and can on its own result in stiffness and rigidity), gesture focuses on motion and fluidity, which can result in things that are ephemeral, not quite feeling solid and stable.
With structure and spatial reasoning in his very bones, he still provides an excellent exploration of gesture, but in a visual language in something that we here appreciate greatly, and that's not something you can find everywhere.
Remember that when you agree with something another user has written, you are putting your own reputation behind it.
Consider the following:
Agreeing blindly just to be nice is a good way to get your permissions associated with this function revoked, so make sure that you genuinely feel that the response is beneficial to the student.
We use cookies in conjunction with Google Analytics to anonymously track how our website is used.
This data is not shared with any other parties or sold to anyone. They are also disabled until consent is provided by clicking the button below, and this consent can be revoked at any time by clicking the "Revoke Analytics Cookie Consent" link in our website footer.
You can read more about what we do with them, read our privacy policy.
