Jumping right in with your organic intersections, there are a few issues here that I want to call out:

• Firstly, this exercise is very much about creating a logical, believable arrangement of forms in 3D space that play by the rules of physics - mainly gravity. The way they slump and sag over one another helps to establish this impression of gravity pushing down on them, and the ground pushing back up. This does however mean that the way in which the forms are arranged on the page can reinforce or undermine the illusion we're creating. Not all gaps are bad, but they have to be considered in terms of what they're communicating in 3D space. So having a sausage form that is held up, like a bridge, across two others - that makes sense. But as shown here you have a lot of gaps that seem more arbitrary, like you weren't entirely considering how they're supposed to exist in 3D space, and whether they'd actually be held up by the forms beneath them.

• You also appear to be running into some issues with your cast shadows - specifically that you're selective in terms of which surfaces are allowed to have shadows cast upon them. Most notably, you haven't drawn any shadows being cast upon the ground for the second one, which give the impression that these sausages are floating arbitrarily in space. For the first one, you have drawn the shadows those lower sausages would cacst, but you're not really maintaining a consistent, level ground plane - you're really just putting sausages wherever (similarly to the first point) and then drawing the shadows such that they cling to the silhouette of the form casting them.

• I also noticed that you're sticking to the same degree/width for all of your contour curves. Remember that as explained in the Lesson 1 ellipses video, these cross-sectional slices of any cylindrical structure will shift wider/narrower based on whether we're moving towards or away from the viewer.

• And lastly, don't forget to draw through all of the ellipses you freehand in this course two full times before lifting your pen, as discussed back in Lesson 1.

One thing that may help you with this exercises is to actually start by drawing an actual plane, to represent the ground, so you recognize it as an actual surface in the world. From there, place one sausage down at a time, and with every next one think about how it's meant to actually settle on top of the pile.

Continuing onto your animal constructions, your results are a bit mixed, but overall you are clearly thinking about working from simple to complex, and each of the issues are things I can address to help you get more out of these exercises. That said, while I can see that you have made efforts to address points I raised in my Lesson 4 critique, there are still things that come up, so let's look at those first:

• Taking actions that occur in 2D space rather than 3D space. So this was one of the main things I shared in your Lesson 4 critique, and I can see the heavy use of additional masses throughout your work. We'll talk a little later about how this can be done better, but I did want to call out a couple areas where you do still take shortcuts in 2D space. We can see some of these for example on this ferret, although in all fairness there are a lot of strange things going on with this one - with the ribcage being set farther back, the legs not employing the sausage method, and so on. We can also see similar issues in this one - that is, with the tendency to make little tweaks at the joints on your legs, the gap between the ribcage form and the torso you were wrapping around it (resulting in a weaker relationship between the two structures), and how you started your feet with larger forms and then cut back into them, working subtractively (which as discussed previously, you should avoid for the lessons tackling organic subject matter).

• You do make a conscious effort to use the sausage method in many of your animals, but I suspect that you did not review exactly what the sausage method entails in its entirety. There are two main points to the sausage method which are explained here. Firstly, we need to stick to the characteristics of simple sausages, which sometimes you do, sometimes you don't (for example, here). Secondly, we need to define the joint between the sausage segments with a contour line right at the joint, and avoid placing them anywhere else along the length of the sausages. You frequently forget to place them at the joints, and do also place them elsewhere along their lengths at times.

Overall, while I think you're still moving in the right direction with these, you may not have gone through the feedback you'd received enough to fully absorb it and apply as strictly as you should have it to your work going forward.

Moving on from there, one issue I think stands out a lot (although it's actually fairly minor and easily addressed), is simply that you're massively overusing contour lines. You seem to be slapping them on everything you can, whenever you can, whether they contribute towards your goals or not - and unfortunately they frequently do not.

Contour lines come in two flavours - there's the kind introduced in the organic forms with contour lines exercise, where they sit along the surface of a single form (it's generally easiest to introduce them this way), and there's the kind introduced in the form intersections exercise which define the joint between different forms, establishing a relationship between them in 3D space.

The latter is very useful, and hard to overuse, because there can only ever exist one joint between two forms. The former however, while it's very effective for introducing the concept of what a contour line is, isn't as useful in practice. There are cases where adding an extra contour line can have a big impact, like when we're wrapping the ribcage and pelvis tightly in a new sausage form to create the torso, having a contour line right in the middle can, in some cases, be beneficial. When we pile them on however, four or five is not necessarily better than one. They suffer from diminishing returns.

We simply cannot just use tools blindly, without asking ourselves, "what is this mark meant to achieve," "how can this mark be executed so it can accomplish that task as effectively as possible," and "are there any other marks that are already doing this job." This happens during the preparation phase of the ghosting method, and so you really should already be in the habit of considering the purpose of your marks before executing them - but this is definitely an area where you need to push yourself to invest more time.

Now overusing contour lines can be largely harmless... but it can also cause issues in certain cases. For example, with the additional masses we build up on our construction. As discussed in my critique of your Lesson 4 work, there are two ways in which a form can be added to an existing structure. In the case that this form is meant to interpenetrate the existing structure, we can simply define an intersectional contour line where they meet, defining the relationship between them. In the case where the form is meant to wrap around the existing structure on the other hand, we actually convey that relationship through the specific design of the additional mass's silhouette.

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.

Here's an example of this at work on one of your camels. In your additional masses you tend to limit yourself only to outward curves and rounded corners, but unfortunately this establishes no actual relationship between a given mass and the structure it's attaching to. We can't avoid the inward curves and sharp corners, but we have to be conscious of where they're supposed to go. Note in my example how every inward curve is caused by pressing up against existing structures - whether it's to wrap around the torso, or press up against the shoulder and hip masses, or even to wrap around another additional mass. Keep in mind that you don't need to draw each mass in one go - with those sharp corners, we have no choice but to design those shapes one stroke at a time.

This of course applies to the legs as well - I did provide examples of how you can build upon the sausage structures additively to capture any further structural nuance, though here you appear to have largely stuck to the basic sausage structures, on occasion adding one-off marks to bridge across from one form to another, an action that occurs only in two dimensions.

As promised earlier, let's take a moment to talk about animals' feet. Instead of working subtractively as I called out earlier, these can be approached additively instead. You do attempt this here and there, but they do still fall somewhat flat, due to just being blobby shaped layered on top of one another. Instead, we can actually use corners in these forms to make them feel more three dimensional, and to help us better understand how to build upon them.

Here on another student's work, I drew a little example of how we can construct the foot as a "boxy form" - that is, using actual corners in its silhouette to imply the presence of internal edges, and the distinction between individual planes (without drawing those internal edges), and then how we can attach yet more boxy forms for the toes.

The last thing I wanted to talk about is head construction. Lesson 5 has a lot of different strategies for constructing heads, between the various demos. I can see some elements of some of them in your various constructions, but it does seem like more often you're figuring each one out as you go, rather than applying a particular approach.

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 certainly going to assign revisions below - you're moving in the right direction but there are a lot of areas for improvement, and I think most of all that is going to be in how you approach absorbing the feedback you receive, and applying it. Always come back to the previous critiques you've been given, read through them again, and ask yourself if you're applying every aspect of it in full. These critiques are simply too dense to read once, or even twice, as important things can be lost when we throw ourselves into our work, to face yet new problems. So, revisiting the feedback periodically will help you catch mistakes before I do.