>>6202805
Alright, I'll bite.
Construction is taught/approached incorrectly and it horribly steers people down the wrong path. It is the principal intermediate trap that, together with planar approaches/reilly method/etc, causes a person to stop seeing things in front of them and relies on symbols and shortcuts. It causes very bad stagnation. This almost always results in hideously robotic figure drawings and paintings that have no resemblance to their real life counterparts whatsoever. You can see this easily in not only drawings, but also paintings, because the hue, value and temperature shifts are either obviously exaggerated without an optical basis, or they are nonexistent because the student cannot actually see what is happening right in front of them.
Michael Hampton is one example of this. He doesn't have a single painting or drawing that he's done that is not a turgid blob overly geometric forms that have no basis in reality of what the human body looks like. This isn't about Picasso's expressive mood drawings, this is about teaching a student to see human figure.
Watts Atelier is another. Nobody there can capture the lighting of the figure to save their life. Their core shadows are blown the fuck out. and everything else is flattened out. For a student to be exposed to that is just awful. Your sensitivities are blunted.
Instead, construction should be approached as an extension of observational drawing/painting, in a limited way. There are no rules for you to follow other than to capture what you see, exactly as you see it. Don't bother "drawing through." You should be able to draw just about anything in front of you without the use of elaborate construction - just a basic block in followed by very tight rendering where the relations of contours, forms, temperatures and colors are tightly intertwined. As you do this, you should be extracting underlying elements of construction based off of what you see in front of you, building a vocabulary.