I have his drawing course. Its alot to take in on one sitting. he explains things fast and moves on quickly. I think he does a good job with teaching composition. Overall some of his theories and examples seem quite forced to be honest. he does spend alot of time attempting to prove his mathematical theories. Some of the measuring is so dense that its almost like using a complicated grid to draw. Im all for measuring for sure but it just seems like its taken a little to far and stiff. I intend to go over it again several times and maybe try his method myself and see what i can use or throw away. Im still undecided if it was worth the money. I much prefer the teaching methods of Glenn Vilppu, Ron Lemen, Peter Han ect.
I have the course as well and have found it fascinating, as much for the art history as the teaching. It's also nice to hear his honest critique of student work, he is definitely not from the Everybody Gets A Prize school of teaching.
It took me like three hours to finish the shading on your upper lip. It's probably the best drawing I've ever done.
When I learned about his design drawing course I felt like it was one of those fundamental pieces of information that was missing that held everything else together. At least, for providing unity and balance in a piece. I found it much more useful to couple his subdivision system as a way of measuring proportion, finding landmarks, and translating them onto a perspective grid. I also found a method to create the root 2, 3 and 4 rectangles purely by using diagonal lines instead of just transferring the length of the hypotenuse, which is why it helps me measure proportion.