Your work is very well done, you may have strugged but you have done an excellent job of applying the principles highlighted in the lesson. I'd like to give you more praises but let's move on to the critique.

-Starting with the arrows sections, you have drawn them confidently and capturing the fluidity with which they move through space, but you definitely want to close them off, you have kept them open which reinforces the idea that thay are just a set of lines. Keep in mind that the negative space between the zigzaging sections of the ribbon should decrease as they move farther away.

-This fluidity carries on very nicely onto your leaves, and you are also do a great job adding the more complex edge detail integrating the bumps and cuts seamlessly unto the structure, I have one observation though, taking a look at the bigger leaf roughly in the center of the page, you ignored the structure that you had already drawn, you have to stick yo your construction and treat them like they're solid marble, especially lessons 4 and 5.

-Moving on to the branches exercise they are by and large well done, I don't really have any criticism to offer. Only a minor observation, avoid any ellipse at 0 degrees beacuse at that point you will be looking at a straight line which throws off the solidity of the drawing.

Now let's address the plants constructions themselves

-You've built up each structure steadily, step by step, carrying forward the solidity from those simpler stages of construction as you added more complexity. I'm not really seeing you skipping any constructional steps, and so everything maintains tight, specific relationships with the preceding and supporting structure. I'm also very happy with how you've so clearly made a point of giving each and every mark as much time as you need to execute it to the best of your current ability.

-I do want to make a suggestion about lineweight, always keep it as subtle as possible, I think that you overdid it in the Morning Glory and Bleeding Heart plants.

  • It's like a whisper to the viewer's subconscious, rather than an obvious shout, and if you end up making it too thick, it'll quickly take your solid, 3D forms, and flatten them out into graphic shapes. You may have been confusing them with cast shadows here, but cast shadows follow different rules - they're projected from one form onto another surface, and therefore they can't cling to the silhouette of an existing form, and must fall on some other physical surface - even if that surface is farther away.

  • Secondly, it helps a fair bit to focus your use of line weight on a specific task. Within the context of this course (given our limitations in the tools we're using here), it's generally most effective to focus the use of line weight on clarifying how different forms overlap one another as shown here.

-And regarding the textures I also don't have much criticism to offer, just keep in mind that texture is no different than any other of the things that are taught in the drawabox course. Just like construction, it's about defining the relationships between different forms in 3D space. The only difference is that these forms are so small and numerous (usually) that if we used the same constructional techniques to capture them (explicit markmaking, outlining them in their entirety, drawing them directly, etc.) our drawings would just end up incredibly noisy.

Finally regarding your crepe myrtle, there's nothing wrong about what you did, keep in mind that these exercises are not about matching the reference.Drawing what you see in your reference does not mean you understand what is depicted there. It doesn't mean you've noted the presence of each little bump, of specific scratches, of specific cracks, etc. It simply means that you're mindlessly copying 2D information over from the 2D reference to your 2D drawing.