This is a fantastic explanation, thank you. I studied with Ted Seth Jacobs, who was a student of both Reilly and Frank Vincent Dumond. Ted tried his best to be 100% optical and draw without any preconceptions at all. But he talked A LOT about visual rhythms-- which in the class were based upon what he was seeing, not based upon a preconceived diagram that he was superimposing onto what he was seeing-- so it was so cool to hear you talk about connecting things through rhythms. This took me back to France again. haha. One big difference between you two, though, is that you work from the inside out, while Ted worked from the outside in. Maybe that was the Dumond influence? But he taught us to start with the large abstract shape, based totally upon what we were seeing (no ovals, measuring head lengths, etc; just abstract shapes based upon what we saw), and then break it down into smaller and smaller shapes. We didn't start working from small shape to small shape. Your method reminds me of how David Kassan draws, actually. I'm sure they're both totally valid ways to draw. Yours totally makes sense as well, so I'm definitely going to give it a shot. The only "issue" I see with measuring small shapes all the way across a painting is that I can't imagine how you get a larger painting in good proportion. i.e. by the time you get to the second foot of the third figure, or get to the background elements, etc, I imagine things can start being far off? Unless you start measuring head lengths once you are very comfortable with the head size, or you go the Mancini route and use a grid on the more complex paintings to get everything roughly in the right spot? Anyways, great demo so far. Love it