SB6 - Peer Review

This peer review exposed that I have not been particularly clear to others about how the project will look, I have produced some scribbles and very refined line art, but I had not made any basic sketches to illustrate what I intend to create. The group suggested I make use of a variety of line weights to seperate depth or draw attention to particular details. In addition the group discussed my use of colour, so far I have not applied any colour to the line art as I intended to do so later that week, although I realise I could have brought some examples of the palette was aiming for.


Self Evaluation

What do you think works well?
The consisten quality of line and mixture of perspectives.
How will you capitalise on it?
I will spend a good chunk of Easter completing all of the line work, to produce a desne bank of spacial information.
What do you think could be improved?
I need to introduce a variety of line weights.
How will you benefit from this?
This illusion of depth will be improved, it may also be used to draw attention to particular details.
What would you do differently next time?
I would produce a variety of colour tests to bring to the review.
What would you acheive from this? 
I would have recieved feedback in regards to my choice of colours.


What have you learned by responding to this brief, and why is it important?

. Photo documentation is harder than it looks. I should have applied a more logical process (I may yet still) Some of the images I took at Hyde Park are not usable, any many require cross-reference to udnerstand, this presents a problem when attempting to reconstruct in the interior in line.

. Isometric grids are limited, but solves many perspective problems (one may eliminate foreshortening)
.  People find my study of mundane amusing, this may be exploited for a more deliberate humour within the work.