/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3725486
>why bridgman is not good

He "abbreviates" everything to the point where it's complete visual jibberish and anyone that's actually drawn through his books like I have knows this. Sure, you'll get the odd good image here and there (his hands book isn't all bad) but in general? Yikes.

>>3725490
That's kind of the joke, it's Erik Gist's "Bridgman Studies" and they're about as far removed from actual Bridgman material as is possible.

Both Erik Gist and Stank Prokopeño's redundant, damage control-laden explanations for "how the FUCK am I supposed to study THIS!?" boils down to "just look at photographs that sort of look like the pictures, bro!" and if you've ever opened up a Bridgman book in your entire life you'd see why that is. What's missing from either of their lectures on the subject is a particularly enthralling reason WHY anyone would want to study from Bridgman when alternatives exist.

I'm sure Bridgman was a fine teacher in life, in a classroom, such that his reputation has preceded him in death for the worse and has given his dated literature a free pass despite it being of dubious quality.