Great video of the process. Quick question; at 12:05 minute in the video, the discussion on how the rear stabilizer wings look off - initially part of the illusion, later concludes grid error- but, are there sometimes situations where you‘d be inclined to ditch perspective ‘law’ in favour of artistic license (i.e. you would thicken that more distant wing to make more similar) when that makes a visually better outcome?

Not completely convinced that I’m not just drawing outline using c and s curves to be honest….but I think I get the difference between shape approach vs gesture approach I.e. this is more part to part whilst gesture is connecting through parts with perceived rhythms(?) I think I also was too part to part in the gesture approach however as my drawings with both approaches look eerily similar 🤔

Orthos to barrel rolls…not sure of my plane sound onomatopoeia….maybe should have been more of a ‘neeee-oaarrrrw’…not too important for the assignment I guess. Dared to foreshorten and ‘diminute’ or whatever the verb is for make smaller in perspective…diminish?

Using the 3D models (pic 1) then spinning and redrawing/relabelling axes from memory (pic 2)

Ok @Marshall Vandruff I think I smell a trap, or maybe I’m just being dramatic 😱 . So, we have 9 basic views and we can draw these as boxes and even add their X, Y, Z axes. Then we have an arrow as an object, and can assign X, Y, Z and a bonus XZ (pic 2). Now, when we put the arrow in a box and draw it from one of the nine views, we can either prioritize Arrow X, Y, Z (pic 3) or maintain consistent X, Y, Z between boxes and arrows (pic 4). The consequence in picture 3 is that the arrow X, Y, Z (solid line colour examples) is different to the Box X, Y, Z (dashed line colour examples). The consequence in picture 4 is that you are constrained in ways you can tumble the arrow in order to keep the box/arrow co-ordinates consistent. So what’s my question….well, I guess that the axes of the object stay consistent no matter how we tumble them, and the axes of the environment stay consistent regardless of viewer position, but object and environment axes will usually be inconsistent and so we keep two sets of axes (or more if many objects) in mind when drawing…?

Quick question on the cast shadow - I’ve tried to draw this foreshortened (thinking in perspective terms) so that the long axis mid-point line is offset slightly toward the far side of the cast shadow, with the edge of the far side less curved also….in the demo it looks like Stan has done opposite and I think that is because of the direction the light is hitting the sphere. So I’m probably misunderstanding how to bring perspective and light on form together - in the image attached I can now see the cast shadow is placed wrong with respect to the light source, and that was done thinking too much about perspective. Any tips?

This was quite challenging, from wonky circles and ellipses to blotchy values and total disasters where tried erasing large areas of dark tone and had to give up…too much erasing changes the texture of the paper surface making it impossible to get smooth areas of tone. Best attempt (image 1) I tried mapping in a lot more value zones first (image 2) like we did in the various value study exercises. Seemed to help even tho far from perfect.

Here’s a stab at one of Marshall’s top view plans. Can get quite inventive but need to not have all the action in top layers so base layers can still be relevant to the view. Good mental exercises 🤯

Used tools and some fairly diligent measurements, scaling everything down to 66% of actual object size. I’m not too inclined to technical drawing like this but I can see the benefits. Probably I’d make a much better job freehand having gone thru the process of trying to do it accurately.

My lines are too stiff but these past few lessons of the course have basically been revelatory for gesture drawing methodologies. This systematic approach really does help. Think I mostly avoided Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man effect….