As you imply, drawing from observation is a skill that is best taught in person. The students mostly learn from being corrected, which I do directly to their dr

As you imply, drawing from observation is a skill that is best taught in person. The students mostly learn from being corrected, which I do directly to their drawings. However, I did put together some material on the subject. I'm not sure how useful it is (some of it could have been better written). My module on perspective: https://rmit.instructure.com/courses/87565/modules/699526 https://rmit.instructure.com/courses/87565/modules/699526 My module on drawing: https://rmit.instructure.com/courses/87565/modules/696832 https://rmit.instructure.com/courses/87565/modules/696832 ...in which I address transference (i.e. projection): https://rmit.instructure.com/courses/87565/modules/items/3287088 https://rmit.instructure.com/courses/87565/modules/items/328... > Can you recommend books or other resources that use your approach (or similar)? Drawing 100 years ago is pretty much the same as now. Here are a bunch of great (free) books all over 40 years old, yet still valid. https://rmit.instructure.com/courses/87565/pages/drawing-free-books?module_item_id=3192120 https://rmit.instructure.com/courses/87565/pages/drawing-fre... My approach is not significantly different to that which most competent drawing teachers would employ. However, I believe that my use of language is a bit more consistent and exact than most artists, who tend to be a bit hand-wavey in their language usage. Practices that are termed one thing in 'book a' are termed something completely different in 'book b'. I learned the value of consistency and exactitude from collaborating with computer engineers, which is one reason I like lurking in HN.