/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3465888

>>3465888
actual true shit for once

>>3465888
You can something out of most resources. Loomis had a few helpful points and proko does a good job at explaining anatomy.
Proko and Loomis being bad is a meme.

>>3465888
You can get something out of most resources. Loomis had a few helpful points and proko does a good job at explaining anatomy.
Proko and Loomis being bad is a meme.

>>3465913
>"Proko and Loomis being bad is a meme."

>>3465925
I have yet to see a good artist talk shit about Loomis.

i hate all of you fucking /ic/

>>3465888
>reading book

>>3465936
LMAO

>>3465888
This so much.
If you want to learn anatomy grab a netter atlas and maybe complete anatomy app for ipad.

>>3465938
Loomis isn't about anatomy, it's a full package for beginners to start on the fundamentals. There has literally never been an actual legitimate argument brought forth against why Loomis is apparently bad. It's always just frustrated ramblings of NGMI failures.

>>3465945
What except anatomy is in loomis that is so good for beginners?

>>3466009
read ops post
what are you doing? stop falling for the meme

>>3466009
A starting point to understand how to draw figures in perspective, easy to understand construction methods, a good overview of rendering with pencil and how to draw from life. Plus Creative Illustration is a very underrated book about composition and creating appealing value statements.

Now tell me, what exactly is so bad about Loomis that you would consider it detrimental to a beginner's artistic development? I really want to understand where people like you are coming from, but I just can't figure out what is apparently so wrong with Loomis and no one is ever able to answer this properly outside of spouting memes.

>>3466009
Right from the start figure drawing for all it's worth is about construction, that's the topic it covers for like half the book
Why are you making fun of a book you've never taken a look at, anon? Did you fall for the meme?

>>3466035
he is just memeing, loomis is great.

>talk to someone IRL who made it and hasn't even heard of /ic/
>says people who don't like loomis don't know what they're talking about

>talk to someone IRL who made it and hasn't even heard of /ic/
>says people who like loomis don't know what they're talking about

>>3465888
Actually Bammes trashes loomis pretty hard in his survey of previous anatomy books (in die gestalten menchen). He also kind of laments that Bridgman apparentky meant something different by the term “constructive” than he did. He found the balloon shapes of Hogarth kind of ridiculous but praised his overall approach.
Bammes is God.

>>3466235
Bammes is the best from these you've mentioned

>>3466236
He is that, but I assert there’s no one better anywhere, ever. He’s like a gateway to a world thats otherwise hidden. Vilppu and his disciples are important for their conception of gesture and flow, which could be argued Bammes lacks - but he’s coming from a different perspective, which is complete in itself.

>>3465888
You think you are hot shit but you are unironically not going to make it.

>He doesn't like Loomis

>>3465888
S-shit I actually started reading the first few pages of Loomis's figure drawing book.
Should I abort?

Loomis is a trap that shouldn't be recommended to anyone.

>>3466341
shit
what should I be reading if not loomis? should I even be following a book for learning anatomy or just practicing?

>>3465888
It's not that Loomis gives bad advice it's that you already need to draw decently to understand what he wants you do do. Like nearly 9 out of 10 people here can't do a decent study from Fun with a Pencil because their drawing level is already too low to even begin with Loomis.

>>3466320
My point proven.

>>3465936
the funny part is that the people who wrote these books didn't use a book to get good LMAO. It's literally right in these retards face. "I want to be as good as Loomis, Oh I know! I'll read his book even though he didn't need the book to learn how to draw!!"
I bet Loomis is laughing in his grave right now.

>>3466497
this fucking cunt loomis ruined many lives fuck him im so mad right now
fucking FUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKCER

>>3466500
I'm on my 2nd month of trying Loomis and I can already draw decently, I think after a year I'll be at a comfortable spot with my drawings. I already have my friends thinking I have talent and I only been drawing for 2 months and got this far.

>>3465888
frogposters ngmi by default

>>3466510
You do have talent. Your drawings are simple but have appeal. I don't know how you do it, but you did it.

>>3465925

It is a meme. Your stupid soul is a meme.
>>3466534

>>3466497
They used books. Dont be dumb.

>>3466510

>>3466601
They didn't use books, art teachers used to actually teach this stuff. Now it's impossible to learn art without old books because art teachers now are dumb as rocks.

>>3466669
that infographic is a meme

>>3465888
Years later and I still don't know if 'Loomis is a meme' is a meme or not. His construction method just never worked for me. I did learn to draw heads eventually but it was because of Steve Huston's shape approach

>>3466772
Cause art teachers now come from the "muh everything is subjective" world and so they don't know shit to begin with

>>3466807
Feng Zhu does just fine though.

>>3466669
Just when I thought there couldn't be anything more pretentious and useless than that Rowland B Wilson book.

>>3466809
>comparing China to the west.

>>3466809
Is China currently stuck in the same post modern rut that we are in the West? I genuinely do not know

>>3465888
If you guys want to watch a "narrated" and more "visual" version of Loomis figure drawing and heads/hands book, I find this guy's videos pretty helpful! He also shows different methods to draw the head/figure by loomis, bridgman, etc.

Warning accent is a little thick though.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXMW--iiuRieIJcKu05IGfQ/featured

>>3466235
Thx fornthe name. His book on human anatomy and structre is wonderful.
I would've never known without you.

>>3466772
They read books.

>>3466798
From my experience and talking to others, most people are impatient and go straight for the constructions without really internalizing the proportions and simplified skeletons first.
$10 says you can draw cylindars and spheres and cubes, and if so you can do Loomis’ construction.
What makes it look like shit (aside from bad perspective) is bad proportion and ignorance of even an abstraction of the skeleton. You have to be able to sort of just wrap the basic shapes around a solid visualized or lightly sketched skeleton (in proportion). By the time you have both of these, the construction “method” is almost arbitrary.

>>3467082
Proko has a handy app for practicing both realistic and abstract skeletons called “Skelley”. The model is fully poseable.

>>3467082
cubes (not just boxes) are pretty hard
you have to remember how a circle inscribed in a pair of parallel lines look from every angle

>>3467093
Personally I wouldnt get that hung up on it. For some people that might be harder than actually learning a skull or basic ribcage-form from say front, side, 3/4 (front/back). The 3D of it kind of clicks once you start eyeballing where the center-line would go on each basic shape.
Also, just my opinion/approach but I have never spent a lot of time drawing perfect mannekins. I sort of sketch or “ghost” the lines anyway. The point is to make a connection between “reality” and basic shapes or masses, not do mecha-people.
Drawing people - well, is virtually impossible without anatomy anyway. Its always how you can tell an “untrained” from a “trained” (self or schooled) artist. This is why people can lose years trying to get the “constructions” right while skipping proportion and basic skeleton structuon and basic masses. If you watch the “gallery abominate” sections of Scott Eatons course you quickly learn how glaring bad anatomy is to the reasonably trained eye.
All “teachers” worth their salt know proportion and anatomy. The construction is a convention - one that varries widely (whereas the anatomy Doesn’t).
If you can get to the point where you can sketch in the lines of the bones and and know where the muscle origins and insertions are and can connect them with some degree of basic acuracy, half of Deviant Art will suddenly look like shit to you.

Its a somewhat dry slog at first but shaves years of time and pain off your development.

hello, newfag to art here, if loomis is bad wtf is a good resource pls help

>>3467131
Jesus, what did I just type the above for? Loomis isnt bad. Just concentrate better.

>>3467131
Not trying to be mean bro..
I *just* typed out how to learn from Loomis right above your post.

>>3467133
oh sorry didnt read your post

>>3466497
You've never heard of bargue plates?

>>3467168
No, I'll look him up.

>>3467168
Not only that, but by Loomis’ time there were plenty of popular books as well as textbooks aimed at school kids, entrance exams and so forth. They’re all over archive.org
In Bridgman’s time (when he was young) and for that matter, throught history there were many copy manuals and anatomy books. There were books on tree drawing and various mthods for construction from guys like JD Harding.

The anon above is just wrong...which is fine except for calling other people retards.

Also, one way to git gud at “feeling” the shapes (way better than construction/perspective methods) is to make them out of Plasticene. Then engrave lines down the centers of each plane (lateral and vertical around the sphere) with a skewer or pencil. This alone is beneficial. Then draw them. Start by drawing them without looking at the paper at all. Just imagine tracing your pencil all around the edges and across the planes. Dont worry that it will look like you did it with your feet. You’re tryting to internalize the forms at a tactile and subconscious level.
Pracice making basic mannikins if you want. Just lay the pieces out on the table into the shape of a body. Try to do it according to Loomis’ proportions.

And so on. Also, find a handful of line making exercises like joing dots with single lines. Pages and pages of them. Do it while watching movies & tv.
Even Loomis is a mystery to you right now, do the above until it isnt.

>>3465930
I have yet to see a good artist recommend loomeme

>>3467225
I have yet to see one who doesnt. He is a permanent influence in modern figure (and basic) drawing. Sometimes people reference him to show something to avoid or as a contrast, but he looms pretty large.
His books are sound kid.
The people who dgi are doing it wrong.

>>3467251
Name one

>>3467252
Every single teacher on NMA, Scott Eaton, Westermore, Orbik, Jeff Watts, Lemen..

Just stop.

>>3466783
>bottom-to-top fundamentals organized neatly
>a meme
pls explain

loomis unironically gained me no progress

t. dumbass who believed his methods were some kind of sorcery magic

>>3467292
>loomis unironically gained me no progress
How's that even possible?

My only guess is that people on /ic/ start too early studying books, instead of figuring stuff out on their own, doing stuff they enjoy.

>>3467263
They don't draw anime anon, he asked for a good artist not those boring turds.

>>3466783
>>3466811
Go away, Dunning-Krugers.

>>3467385
That was pretty good

>>3465930
That is because it's a bandwagon thing, and people are afraid of being attacked by the bandwagon. It's like the emperor has no clothes

>>3467297
>figuring stuff out on their own
so you don't need the freaking book or any specific method
If it helps you find the motivation to draw, great, but that really is all it's good for

If you don't want to end up a glorified figure/portrait artist incapable of doing anything imaginative or cool, you're gonna have to throw away the book in anger at some point
There's no method to using your eyes and training your muscle memory

The people /ic/ recommend usually have a Bob Ross american approach to art like "follow these tricks and basics and it'll always turn out fine"
more or less "follow these tricks to make uninspired garbage that technically isn't bad"

fuck that, learn what makes a drawing appealing, look up a fuckton of different artists, never just a couple

>>3465888
(you)

>>3466320
Your biggest problem is that it doesn't look like you understand what you're drawing, you're just copying a picture loomis drew

>>3466669
Level 0 Cirno is what would be called "symbol drawing" correct?

Also I find the 3rd mastery Cirno example the best of them all there, but the 6th mastery is nice though, that mix of realistic detailed body anatomy and stylized face is always a nice style.

But even just getting to that 3rd mastery level would be ideal for drawing animu. This is a really good infographic.