willem wrote:
That's exactly what my drawing teacher told me, too, so you probably have a point...

He wanted my to make my shades much blacker, and draw much more prominent edges. But the thing with this is that I don't
see those edges, things clearly aren't encased in black lines, reality is not a cartoon! Do most people really see black cartoon-like lines around everything..? And shades, they're usually not even remotely black, so I can't draw them as if they were black. That would be lying. (My teacher responded to this with an oxymoron saying that "artists must lie to reveal the truth" -- unbridgeable gap between NT and AS thinking there... ) The above two drawings do really come pretty close to what I saw when I was looking at that chair and that toilet roll.
i see your reasoning.
yet, i tend to think of drawing as something that is similar to literature: when you read a factual account of what happened, it would most likely bore the hell out of everyone, even an aspie (except those who have an obsession about the object of the drawing - but its about the object, then, not the drawing). to illustrate those punching moments, metaphors and the like are used to make it read with the impact it had at that moment.
in drawing, there are similar means to strengthen this or play down that a bit, so that you dont depict this actual roll of toilet paper in front of you, but the very soul of every toilet paper rools in the world. pure depicting of every single detail is something a camera can do better in less time.
for example, if you want to have the paper have that really bright look, you could have a dark background. eventually, this leaves you with a few more value steps to model the paper roll, too.
if you dont enjoy drawing the edges, you can do without them, of course. you need to pay attention, then, to have some contrasts between shaded areas that make the forms read. drawing outlines is a sort of a shortcut to what we make with the images in our head. perception is not only the physical taking in with our eyes.

we isolate things we recognize, we even add or subtract details, push here or pull there... basically, thats why caricature works.
for starters, i find this thought to be very aspie-compatible: light either does hit a plane on the object or does not. light can not really half-hit a plane.
that made me switch from shading everything in gradients to shading things in flat light and flat shade - and look what the edge between those two looks like. it can be hard, soft or almost lost... but it is just the edge between two states on the object: light hits or light hits not.
there still is a lot more to it, though, such as ambient light, light bouncing from lit surfaces, etcetera... but i found that way of thinking more systematic (good for aspie mind) while strengthening my drawing. i wouldnt refer to some metaphysical blahblah about "lie to reveal truth"... id rather closely watch myself looking at things, read up on gestalt theory, all the strange quirks of perception etcetera...
eventually, it leads in the same direction.
hmm... i wrote quite the novel here... (and im supposed to get up early for univeristy tomorrow, argh!)