Herald wrote:I think you're overthinking the whole thing.

But do you think all that I am saying there is wrong because I am "overthinking," Herald?

The rectangle already is a basic geometric shape...

So? Rectangles drawn aren't so easy to be illustrated. But you can replace "rectangle drawn on whiteboard" with "face" if you want.

Can't you divide a rectangle into many rectangles or into two or more triangles if you want? I mean, not all rectangles look completely alike, and I don't think it'd be such an easy thing to accurately illustrate any rectangle drawn on a whiteboard. Think of big rectangles that wouldn't be laying on their lengths or widths, but would be a little rotated around their center, for example. By what you're suggesting, rectangles on the wall would be easier to draw if we divide them using rectangles and triangles. What I am thinking is that dividing the rectangle wouldn't be of much use if you can't clearly see what you are dividing, and that to accurately divide the rectangle, you actually have to see it and its particular features clearly first. I may be wrong though.

Oh, and apparently basic geometric shapes like a circle wouldn't be much easier to draw if we divide them into other geometric shapes. Which is weird.

By all means.

I have some free time so I will try it later hopefully. But I think I'd just be better off directly drawing it.

It's useful for that, too.

Yeah, using cylinders or rectangles for arms and legs, etc..

Ultimately, you can draw without having to use basic shapes first. But they can help you get started.

Yeah, but I figure there might be easier ways to get started.