Ran out of space😔

This is probably the most methodical drawing I’ve done. I finally used the tools that we are supposed to use for this course, and I was surprised by how easy it was to focus on accuracy when I had these tools in hand. Also very fun though! I think I finally get why people like Stan Prokopenko compare perspective to math, like as you can see in some of the sketches, it really felt like I was doing geometry. But it’s only similar to geometry. I still don’t buy the comparison to math as in general. Perspective is just not nearly as complex as math. And you don’t have to be good at math to be good at perspective. Like Kim jung gi basically just Leared perspective by drawing a whole bunch. You can’t learn trigonometry by playing around with a calculator. Basically what I mean is that perspective is like other areas of art, like where it can technically be learned by trial and error, and perspective is realistically intuitive, but math is not intuitive at all and it is all about learning the rules. Marshall I challenge you on this debate and that was my argument 👊 and in the end I had to try and make it look like those cool fonts from the 2010’s. Those fonts were awesome, and cool.

I tried to play around with building a rockey landscape, but the thing that exited me the most was the methodical way to build a rock like Phillip showed in the lesson. I first tried a simple shape, and drew the lines that would be visible in blue, and those that wouldn’t be visible in red. Then I tried a more complex shape. It really felt great and it felt like I was understanding the 3d form of what I was drawing. It made me able to sculpt on the paper without much guesswork. I realised that it was basically isometric perspective, and I figured that I could draw boxes as well, so I tried drawing the shape of my house. Drawing the cracks in the rocks looked really tempting, so I had to try it out.

I tried drawing a goat skull from reference a couple of times, and then I tried turning it around in my head and draw a mechanised version from memory. I think it turned out alright, but I didn’t really get a good grip on the 3D form of the skull. I think that a 3D model, or the real thing like Peter had, would have helped a lot. The references were all too similar and they gave me an idea of the silhouette instead of the 3D form.

Took other people's idea of using a perfume bottle. This was definitely interesting, usually when I do object construction measurements, it feels like an unusual form of punishment. But while the blob method didn't have the most accurate results, it was surprisingly fun, it was a pleasure to do it. I tried to not look back much to try to fix mistakes, kept it fairly quick, which also probably helped with my enjoyment Overall the thing I struggle with is keeping the size of the initial box at least semi consistent. I will also try to do a more complex object one of these day and see how it fares Thank you for the lesson as usually

at first I chose the red blocky toy, but I found out that it was hard to simplify more than it already was. Instead I found a model of the Deloreon from back to the future. The biggest drawing on the page was the one I did from reference, and the rest was done afterwards trying to rotate and draw it from memory. I also tried to open the doors from memory. The “blob method” Marshall talked about, worked ok, but I think it wasn’t very useful in this case because the Deloreon is already pretty much just a box, and I don’t need the blob method to draw that. But I can see the potential the blob method has!

Here are some of the circles I did. It is actually quite difficult to do them freehand. hope i can still make it into the video!

Hi Marshall 🇲🇭 i have chosen to pick the illustrations purely because that they are some of my favourite, and not because they are particularly helpful in understanding perspective. the first illustration I will talk about should align with the first photo, and so on. and just so we don’t forget: * Diminution (smaller objects appear farther away), * Convergence (parallel lines meet at vanishing points), * Foreshortening (objects look shorter when viewed from an angle), * Overlap (closer objects cover parts of farther ones), * Atmosphere (distant objects fade or change color due to air or light). Artist: Jackob Martin Strid * Diminution = 4/5 You can clearly see the holes in the motor getting smaller, as well as what appears to be shelves on the side of the motor. It doesn’t get 5/5 because I think it could be even clearer. * Convergence = 5/5 SCD * Foreshortening = 5/5 The way the holes on top of the motor goes from circles, to ovals, and then to thin slivers as they go away, is one of the things that makes this one of my favourite pieces. * Overlap = 4/5 Although overlap is far from the main thing in this piece that shows depth, it’s still utilised in the crankshafts (I think that’s what they’re called). * Atmosphere = 0/5 The background is just a white void and the thing furthest away is not that far, so there’s no use of atmospheric perspective. OVERALL SCORE = 3,6/5 Although the score doesn’t look that impressive, I think this piece show a great appreciation of these principles. When I read this book- ( Den Fantastiske Bus, it’s a fantastic book, I think you should buy it!) -I easily get sucked into the world when I see drawings like this, simply because it so effectively uses perspective to convey an actual 3D space. Artist: Howard Pyle * Diminution = 2/5 The ship in the back is bigger even though its further away. At least you can see the waves diminishing. * Convergence = 0/5 This painting is filled with organic shapes, and the few straight lines don’t seem to be converging. * Foreshortening = 2/5 the big ship in the back appears shorter in length because it is turned somewhat towards the viewer. * Overlap = 5/5 The ships in the front overlap the big ship in the back, and the waves closer overlap the waves further away. Overlap is probably the main trick that shows depth in this piece. * Atmosphere = 4/5 The ships further away gradually has less contrast, and you can actually see the smoke that is creating this atmosphere. OVERALL SCORE = 2,6/5 I think it’s interesting to see that you can achieve an acceptable illusion of depth by only using a few of these principles. Artist: Adolph Menzel * Diminution = 0/5 The entire is somewhat flat, not a lot of diminution going on. * Convergence = 0/5 Nope. * Foreshortening 5/5 The big toe points up towards the camera and clearly gets squished. You can also see a little foreshortening on the leg, because it also points upwards. * Overlap 1/5 Some of the toes overlap each other very slightly, and the foot overlaps the background of course. * Atmosphere = 0/5 No. OVERALL SCORE = 1,2/5 I think that if it wasn’t for the fact that the picture depicts very accurately something we all have seen before and know what is, it wouldn’t give a very strong illusion of a 3D space. I chose this picture purely because I find the colour, anatomy and technique amazing, not because I think he used these perspective tricks well on this painting. Artist: Hergé * Diminution = 4/5 The red fish closest is larger than the red fish a little further back. The seaweed in the foreground is also much larger than the seaweed far in the background. * Convergence 2/5 There is some straight line structure on the shark-submarine, but most of this illustration is just organic shapes and lines. * Foreshortening 1/5 Just a little bit in a couple of places. * Overlap 5/5 Probably the main way the viewer is supposed to interpret the 3D space of this illustration. Especially prominent in the seaweed, overlap is how you can tell witch pieces of seaweed are in front of the submarine, and witch are behind. * Atmosphere 2/5 The seaweed in the far background are rendered fully black, and I think that gives a little atmospheric effect, although it’s not the main way of showing depth. OVERALL SCORE = 2,8 I think that because this is the cover of a cartoon, it was important for Hergé to create a graphically strong image, and maybe depth wasn’t the focus point. On the other hand the score is pulled up because cartoons are often drawn with complete lines, and there’s seldom anything abstract that could confuse the viewer on what 3D space they are seeing.

I’ve tried to play with the simple illusion of a box being both suspended in air, and connected to the other blocks AT THE SAME TIME🤯🤯🤯! im sure this exact trick has been used numerous times before, but i've never seen it before, so i'm gonna present this as a creative solution. -i am not quite sure how to arrange the pictures, so if anyone could help me with that, that would be great.- i've tried to draw the outline of the shape, and it really shows that in isometric perspective, everything really is just that hexagon. The "final" sketch is meant to look somewhat like those classic drawings by M.C Escher, like in the way only used monotone. i would like any form of critique!

I attempted to apply the consistent shading techniques I learned in the Basics Course to this assignment. Hope this is Ok.😁