RERAMIC STUDIO 
43 
1 
2, 
♦pool 
J. a 
/'vn- 
F« 
.1 
3 
/V(' 
^- 
the groups of lines should be closer together, making more contrast with larger 
spaces. 
Problem II. Sol. 4 — Repetition not under consideration. Sol. 5 — Lines 
of leaves at right too parallel— divisions would be better if larger leaf went to 
top. Sketch is simply handled, big in feeling and shows promise. Lines are 
still too unrefined in quahty. Sol. 6— Composition too involved, lines go in 
too many directions; leaf should not go to corner, emphasizing that spot. 
Problem III. Sol. 4— This would be better if one of the trees were wider, 
thereby counteracting the movement of the road out of the picture. Sol. 5— 
Is the best solution, one of the trees should be wider. Sol. 6— Too many 
small and similar areas gives confusion. 
E. P. H. — Problem I. Solutions are all too regular. Sol. 1 is the best. 
Problem II. Solutions would all be better if the rectangle cut the flower 
or leaf at side or top as well as base. 
Prob. III. Sol. 1 — Would be better if the perspective of trees had not 
been drawn so regularly as to suggest artificial arrangement. Sol. 3— Space 
divisions too much alike. Draw your rectangle within the edge of tlie paper 
instead of cutting paper in a rectangle. Solutions sent in time to be published 
will receive more definite criticism. 
A. L. H. — Your work was .sent too late for special criticism. It is all too 
indefinitely dra-s^m, lines are weak and drawn without sufficient thought — im- 
possible to tell just what was intended. We cannot return work sent for 
criticisms — see note at beginning. Try again and make a bolder drawing. 
L. B. H. — Problem I. All the sohitions are open to the .same criticisms 
as that of C. W. No. 3, the problem of repetition is not under consideration. 
1 and 3 are the best. Sol. 2 has not sufficiently large areas. The force and 
frankness of the lines are good. 
Prob. II. Solutions are all under the same criticisms as Fig. xviii in the 
