/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

Loomis is easier to understand and works better as an actual method of construction, Bridgman heads are better for understanding the anatomy

>>7143189
This.

>>7143182
Bridgman heads aren't weird. They're just very specific. Given how dogmatic some people treat construction methods, this can be very limiting.
Overly detailed constructions run into another problem: they become almost as hard as visualizing heads themselves. If your spheres and boxes are wonky, you can forget about this. Again, it's not a problem with Bridgman per se. It just shouldn't be anyone's first.
People forget who Bridgman was, whom he taught, and what these books are. It's a compilation of lecture notes for already advanced art students. He's not teaching anyone to have fun with a pencil.

>>7143182
I love bridgeman’s heads, they’re strong and shapely and most importantly interesting. Or in other words what this anon said>>7143427

Who gives a shit what Finch says or does.

His heads are fine but his expressions are hideous. Someone post the pic of the surprised baby. You know the one.

>>7143560
He was copying Frans Hals or some shit with that drawing, it's hideous but any drawings you see are just his demonstrations, the accompanied text is pretty important

>>7143441
anybody who actually wants to get good should

I legit have no clue who david finch is. But bridgman is based so I agree with him

>>7143441
did the advice to copy Bridgman not come from Finch?

>>7143667
I dont want him to teach me all about that buccinator....

>>7143667
this the only weird head

>>7143182
I know /ic/ struggles with this concept immensely, but, you can study from two different sources and learn from both, even if you don't master either. In fact, you should take every chance to study new things. Artistic skill is a hollistic thing; it is not something that you can just level up like a video game by killing five hundred pigs.

>>7144090
Then why didn't Finchy say do both?

>>7143667
The exception that proves the rule

>>7144194
Nta; because he found Loomis more useful or appealing [to him] perhaps?

I mean, regardless of the topic you choose, if you pick enough people, you'll find every nuance of point of view on said topic. People are all different, deal with it bro

>>7143182
Just use Hogarth heads. They are straightforward and universal

>>7144194
A few reasons
>A) If someone's asking you for advice, especially in a professional capacity, it's good to be concise
>B) He was talking about what worked for him, and after practicing both extensively, he obviously decided Loomis was better; you wouldn't take advice from someone on something if they hadn't tried it, right?
>C) "Do X, not Y" is more marketable, and people want marketability from their gurus. This is why politicians, teachers, leaders, and anyone looking to influence others speak in extremes; it looks good on a poster

can someone post some finch art