/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>5216929
I’m gonna loooooom oh oh I’m loooooming

>>5216929
never studied loomis, I used proko and a fuck ton of youtube tutorials and I'm currently studying bridgeman. is it worth going back and reading his books when I'm way past being a beginner?

>>5216979
no

>>5216979
yes

Can't get behind how loomis stuff is supposed to help.

>>5216991
>>5217005
This

>>5216979
if you're past beginner the only one worth reading is creative illustration

>>5216979
drop all the meme shit you are currently wasting your time on, this was uploaded here a week or two ago, no excuse anymore, it's english too.

>>5217055
fuck off seok

>>5216979
Depends, pyw.

>>5217102
This.

>>5216979
pyw nigga

>>5217055
this is unironically the best anatomy book i've ever read, nothing else comes close to being so holistic and useful as a learning aid

hampton lacks anatomy and defers to other sources, loomis same thing, bridgman is completely impenetrable except for copying his drawings, bammes is smoking crack, hogarth is kinda delusional in the visual department as far as realism or any level of semi-realism is concerned, mattesi wants to trademark the idea of gesture, proko is practically useful but completely abstract

but THIS. this has it all. chain it with some gesture source and basic persepctive and you have everything you could ever want. as an anatomy book? it's perfect. triple distilled, pure soju. once you go stonehouse everyone else looks like jazza by comparison

>>5216979
pyw, I actually wanna see, no crabbing I promise

>>5217532
Is the translation worth it or should I stick to the original?

>>5216944
t. Andrlew Coomis

>>5217562
the top two were done from imagination and the bottom from reference. I'm not very good at rendering and they still look kind of weird to me anatomically. are there any specific parts of loomis I should read or is it worth going over the whole book?

It's weird reading about all these people who supposedly open Loomis and just somehow bounce off him? For me it was like, oh, so THAT'S how you do it! Why did I never think of this! It's much easier than I thought! I can't wait to try this in practice.
I guess total beginners see things differently.

>>5218114
Draw 4 figures (can just be stickmen) in different positions on the canvas with a horizon line

>>5218151

>>5218162
Sweet
Doesn't look like you need Loomis then

>>5218133
You underestimate my autism

>>5218162
thanks then, good to know

>>5218183
>>5218162

Anytime
Loomis is most important when you have trouble drawing many people in one setting, drawing people from above and below and that's pretty much it. The most important principles of the book are contained within the first few chapters, and it's enough to just skim over them if needed.

>>5218204
What book?

>>5218209
Figure drawing for all it's worth

Should be one of the first links in the artbooks thread

>>5217924
it's absolutely worth it, the explanations of why anatomy is the way it is are part of what makes it so great for understanding and internalizing the info.

i was grinding the scapula yesterday and it clicked in a way that hasn't clicked before from other sources because he explains not only what it looks like from an aesthetic pov but why it's there, how the form is defined by the function, etc etc to take this complex shape out of the abstract and into reality. also lots of small bits of info and imagery to help remember, and a bit of humour on top. recommend

>>5218256
And if something in it sounds slightly off imagine a Korean dude trying to explain it in broken English and it makes more sense