Hogarth is bad for you

[Anonymous No.5085960]

> What annoyed me about Hogarth's
"Dynamic Figure Drawing" is that the methods he described couldn't,
in my opinion, work. He describes a "perspective" drawing system
that has no perspective; in which foreshortened figures are merely
shortened (but are the same width through). The height of this
silliness is his oft-repeated diagrams in which he swaps front view
and rear view and claims they both fit the same outline.

> To add insult to injury, through pages of drawings filled with cute
little arrows showing how the width of a knee was the same in THIS
view as it is in THAT view....well, I pulled out a straight-edge and
checked. He cheated. They weren't. Nor were any of the knees I
checked actually isocoles triangles.

> In a particularly cute bit he shows how the possible positions of a
rotating arm can be plotted along an ellipse. Well and good -- yes,
an ellipse can be made to fit. The question is, can you draw the
ellipse first? How would you derive the plane and ratio of that
ellipse?

> It left me with the feeling that this was the self-deluded work of a
decent anatomist, fitting triangles and ruled edges after the fact
onto freehand sketches and claiming to have invented a system that
allows you to derive the latter from the former.

[Anonymous No.5085973]

k

[Anonymous No.5085977]

>>5085960
How can anyone look at that cover and think "yeah, I wanna learn from that guy"

[Anonymous No.5085978]

you know that Hogarth based his methods on Michelangelo's art?

[Anonymous No.5085980]

[Anonymous No.5085981]

[Anonymous No.5085982]

[Anonymous No.5085987]

also his hand drawings are amazing. His style is difficult to learn for a beginner that's why Loomis is a better choice to start with.

[Anonymous No.5085990]

[Anonymous No.5085993]

Hogarth is not for photocopiers who have to have their hand held the entire time.

[Anonymous No.5085997]

>>5085993
stop defending him when he clearly didn't know anatomy and perspective.

[Anonymous No.5086024]

>>5085997
>didn't know anatomy

Every single muscle and bone is accounted for and emphasized for effect, unlike Bridgman the overrated turd.

[Anonymous No.5086031]

Another pleb filtered by Hogarth.

[Anonymous No.5086039]

OP has convinced me. The superior learning method is making threads on /ic/ asking anons just as retarded as I am how to draw in a certain style.

[Anonymous No.5086047]

I dont know what OPs problem is... but if you REALLY want to learn good shit, you gotta go completely awol and study figure from scratch, no books, just be a man and get the shit done through observation.

Then again you might not be as talented to be able to do this kinda think like me soooo *smug shrug*

[Anonymous No.5086055]

You're not supposed to copy his drawings. You study him by observing how he simplifies the body. If that's too hard, study more anatomy (He even mentions in one book that his shouldn't be the only one you use.)

[Anonymous No.5086099]

>>5086047
>you gotta go completely awol and study figure from scratch
Wouldn't that require you to find fresh human bodies to dissect like in the old days?

[Anonymous No.5086105]

>>5086099

:)

[Anonymous No.5086107]

>>5086105

Or you could fucking develop da-vinci eyes and literally understand the fucking skeletal structure of a human being by looking at how light casts off of their transparent flesh.

I only eat carrots... ONLY.

[Anonymous No.5086267]

>>5085987
>>5085990
i do love how he draws hands, currently studying them right now

[Anonymous No.5086282]

>>5085960
>criticisms from a random boomer perma/beg/ posting on a forum in 2005

[Anonymous No.5086286]

>>5086024
Retard so you even know what Constructive. anatomy implies?

[Anonymous No.5086348]

>>5085987
I don't think you're supposed to learn his style though. He's massively exagerrating everything to better show joints and muscle placements in his tutorials, nobody actually looks like this.

[Anonymous No.5086367]

>>5085960
>Don’t try to read it — you’ll just get frustrated. Look at the pictures and you’ll learn how to use form in drawing the figure. The anatomy is stylized to the point of looking artificial — more like plastic action figures than real humans — but it is strong on showing how classic draftsmanship can be creatively applied to the human body. —mv
https://www.marshallart.com/HOME/reviews/human-anatomy/

[Anonymous No.5086371]

>>5086282
Holy shit it's exactly the same down to the line breaks

[Anonymous No.5086522]

>>5086371
maybe because I copied it for discussion on /ic/ you retard?

[Anonymous No.5086532]

>>5085960
you don't have to draw a perspective grid just to draw a figure in perspective retard. merry christmas btw.

[Anonymous No.5086538]

>>5086532
merry christmas, I love you anon, I always will...
- OP

[Anonymous No.5086725]

Hogarth was a comic book artist. He wasn't trying to teach realism (you can just photocopy a figure for that) but to teach close-enough shortcuts.

[Anonymous No.5086732]

>>5086725
that it's trash

[Anonymous No.5086737]

>>5086732
pyw

[Anonymous No.5086739]

>>5086725
His linework is much better than his finished pencil renderings

[Anonymous No.5086755]

>>5086725
hee seems to draw everything as though it's through a really long lens, it flattens the image a lot

[Anonymous No.5086765]

>>5085960
How many books are out there by now trying to teach retards perspective
It either clicks or it doesn't
Things get shorter the further away from you they are, that's it, thats perspective
You don't need all these tools and concepts, just use your fucking brain Holy shit
Also were you trying to do the Harry Potter copy pasta? You failed

[Anonymous No.5086830]

>>5085977
me

[Anonymous No.5086839]

hogarth is the original pillowshader

[Anonymous No.5086852]

>>5086739
the way he balloons the anatomy and renders the figures in his books are done so to help you feel the form

[Anonymous No.5086871]

>>5086348
idk what ur talking abt my buddy eric looks exactly like that

[Anonymous No.5086887]

There are no correct answers in art. If you don't like his style, why read him? Just so you can feel superior when you complain about some inane stuff? Wow, congrats, you are clearly above this person that has done way more in his life than any of us here ever will. Guess you don't even have to better yourself, you're just that good, wow

[Anonymous No.5086898]

>>5086725
that stuff looks so dynamic, yet also so stiff

[Anonymous No.5086944]

>>5086887
angry much? yikes

[Anonymous No.5086992]

>>5086898
pyw

[Anonymous No.5087041]

>>5086725
those hands look so fucking awkward

[Anonymous No.5087048]

Drawing Dynamic Penises

[Anonymous No.5087313]

>>5086047
Unironically a high IQ answer from someone who actually gives a solid fuck about drawing

My beef isn’t with Hogarth. I like him because of how batshit insane his drawing are.

No, my beef is with Hampton. A talentless hack who can hardly teach let alone draw a human figure that doesn’t look like an abomination done by some who would have been better going into STEM. I’ll make a thread about him another time.

So yes, draw from life, almost exclusively for a while if you can so you get nature in your eyes and your mind before anything else.

[Anonymous No.5087328]

>>5086267
I’ve yet to hear anyone say they don’t like Hogarth with a straight face on. What they don’t like is how he exaggerates stuff, but his madness has taste behind it and that’s why he is a polarizing figure.

[Anonymous No.5087369]

>>5087313
then how come so many praise on hampton book?

[Anonymous No.5087374]

>>5087369

Nigga i dont even know who hampton is, i literally learned from replicating greek statues like "The David". I actually used it for this one.

>>5086047
Im the guy who made this post btw ^^^

[Anonymous No.5087393]

>>5087369
They’re misguided. They don’t know Hampton’s own work never evolved beyond this. His figures are angular apparitions that are done in such an engineered way that there’s no way to get life back out of it. He takes men and women and turns them into his architectural nonsense.

Ironically, Vilppu complained about this in his own book decades before, saying how he’s always worried that him and his students will reduce a figure down to mechanical execution. So in his mind he is always trying to find ways to keep it fresh and look at it with a beginner’s mind.

Hampton is good for one thing: a very brief study of any planes you’re uncertain of. For actual figure drawing, I have a very hard time trying to find someone better than Vilppu. His work is very humanistic, the opposite of Hampton. And yet Vilppu trains people to first and foremost draw from imagination and memory, which is what Hamptontards are after. You don’t need to draw robotic looking figures for that.

[Anonymous No.5087429]

>>5085960
Is exagerated OP

[Anonymous No.5087436]

>>5087369
The analytical figure breakdown is fine, Hampton is just a terrible artist.

[Anonymous No.5087780]

>>5086024
it's not made for begs my man

[Anonymous No.5087788]

>>5086047
You are correct. You sound like a complete cunt, but correct never the less

[Anonymous No.5087792]

>>5087369
hampton's book is great, its just his finished work sucks balls, but he knows what he is teaching you, then its on you to actually bring life into it

[Anonymous No.5087793]

>>5087374
>i literally learned from replicating greek statues like "The David". I actually used it for this one.
it shows nigga

[Anonymous No.5087818]

>>5087780
It's not made for anybody. Bridgman is shit lmao

[Anonymous No.5087828]

>>5087369
because his book is basically Vilppu for Dummies

[Anonymous No.5087836]

>>5086755
what makes a drawing look like its shot through a long lens?

[Anonymous No.5087839]

>>5087818
It's for advanced artists, and I doubt you will ever get there so don't worry about it.

[Anonymous No.5087849]

>>5087374
>these are the people giving you advice

[Anonymous No.5087864]

>>5087836
Flat looking foreshortening. Check out the hands of the third figure (from top to bottom), same size even though Tarzans right arm is almost heading toward us. This is sort of similar to how a camera with long lens would capture a subject.

[Anonymous No.5087871]

>>5087393
You really make a good point here. There's a lot of great info in his book and I've learned a lot from it. But my main criticism of it is that in an attempt to dumb it down as much as possible, he often abstracts the figure so much into such rudimentary geometrics that it is almost pointless to think of it in such a way because it is so divorced from how the figure actually looks to the eye. Picrel.
Vilppu teaches you construction in a way that's more fluid and practical.

[Anonymous No.5087873]

>>5087864
oh thanks ill remember that

[Anonymous No.5087874]

>>5086725
kek he looks like handsome squidward

[Anonymous No.5087902]

Hampton's method is just the down syndrome cousin of Bammes.

[Anonymous No.5088196]

>>5085960
>in my opinion
Why do you think the opinions of a retard social reject who doesn't know how to draw have any weight in art education?

[Anonymous No.5088484]

>>5087873

[Anonymous No.5088486]

>>5088484
I collect these

[Anonymous No.5088488]

>>5088486
I just think they're neat

[Anonymous No.5089135]

>>5087871
>>5087902

It's very simple: look at the work that these people end up doing, and ask yourself if this is the kind of work you want to do.

People make the mistake of thinking that Hampton and Bammes books are some kind of an introductory step towards art work. They aren't. Bammes wasn't an artist. He was some Type-A professor of anatomy. Hampton's own work isn't any better than the shit in his book. It looks godawful on it's own, like someone lobotomized him early on with box modeling and he never healed up.

Again, Vilppu is quick to comment on these things by saying that while blocky construction is good as you're building up a figure or whatever your subject is, you ultimately should stay away from making your figures look like that because it's unappealing.

Which brings me to the real question: who the fuck are these books for? Autists? Once you learn how to correctly see shit in front of you (Vilppu calls this point-to-point drawing, lesson #1), you don't need Bammes' 500-page book on the block-out of every anatomical body part. You can figure that shit out yourself by drawing and having a basic understanding of real anatomy, not the cylindrical and box bullshit analogies they cram down to your throat.

To give an analogy: trying to learn figure drawing by drawing 100s of boxes and cylinders is like a musician trying to practice rhythm and tempo by placing vertical bars on a blank music sheet. Just get the fuck out with that nonsense and do some real life drawing for fucks sake.

[Anonymous No.5089640]

>>5087374
yikes

[Anonymous No.5089652]

>>5085977
It just tells me I shouldn't learn anatomy because I'll wind up like most musclefag "expert" artists, forever drawing people without skin or fat.

[Anonymous No.5089663]

>>5086871
Stop gawking at his massive glowing stiffy and tell him leopard pants went out of style in the '90s.

[Anonymous No.5089726]

What you need is an eye for the good, helpful drawings that can teach you one thing. Just one thing. Each of these instructors have their strengths and their weaknesses, because nobody's master of all. If you study from one source, you're bound to fixate on distortions, unhelpful quirks of style. So it's best to study the work and not the teacher. Save the singles and the hits, not the entire discography (unless you really like it).
If you go into a study of a teacher's drawing with the belief you have to like the drawing as a whole, you're sort of missing its value. I've studied each of these, because I saw something good and useful in them. Hampton's shit does look pretty awful a lot of the time, and it can be hard to extract practical information from. But every now and then he knocks it out of the park like with his arm abstraction here. Same for Bammes and the sense of weight bearing in the leg here, Hogarth and the knee volumes, the sense of volume in the Vilppu arm. You save those images, and you don't copy them, but apply them to an analysis of the real thing, and to your own work.
Be like an omnivore consuming every tasty thing.

[Anonymous No.5090615]

>>5086024
Focusing on planes and masses of anatomy lets you depict them clearly and with depth from any angle using minimal rendering, if you need to break out the tortillon every time you want to depict a body part you're only handicapping yourself

[Anonymous No.5092293]

>>5089652
> I shouldn't learn anatomy
That's retarded. Unless you're drawing nickelodeon level cartoons you won't get anywhere without knowing anatomy.

[Anonymous No.5092315]

>>5089726
As a /beg/ right now, what should I actually be doing, I'm robotic in learning and in drawing, any good resource to develop some thinking, not used to thinking tb h

[Anonymous No.5092728]

>>5086099
there are these videos on youtube for that.

[Anonymous No.5092746]

>>5085978
doesnt mean they are the same or that studying hogarth will make you closer to michelangelo or that studying hogarth is the same as studying michelangelo. look at michelangelo sketches and the style is completely different. if one will go as far as mentioning his influence of michelangelo as a sort of defence, why not just study michelangelo for your own instead of through an interpreter, especially a c*mic "artist"?

[Anonymous No.5092938]

>>5092315
Put on your gas mask and go do some life drawing classes. Short sessions and long sessions. 30 seconds to 3 hours.

Avoid anime and stylization. Avoid imaginative drawings where you don't know what you are doing. If you don't know what a kangaroo looks like, don't bother drawing one. Look it up first, try to get some impression, and then put that impression down. Contrary to popular belief, your initial impression is very much correct, but you lack the language of drawing to express it fluently, so you need to build up filters in your eyes to quickly chase important parts of that impression and the memory to be able to draw what you saw days after you saw it. Both of these come with time and focus.

Every one of these design systems, from Loomis to Hogarth to Hampton to Vilppu to Gnass to Anatomy for Sculptors to fucking Barnstone can be derived by drawing from life. Every single fucking one. The old masters certainly got very far without having Loomis hold their hand telling them to cut sides off of an egg for the temporal bone. The kind of systems that can't really be derived are the far out artistic ones like Egon Schiele. That's why they are looked up to no matter how unrealistic or whatever their artwork ends up being.

The most counterproductive thing you can do for your development is to spend a fuckton of time studying how for example Vilppu does everything, over and over and over again. I pick on him because I praise him. Get the general idea of what he is after, get the line quality down, and then forget it. Literally forget the shit he taught you and go look at a model and let the ideas come forward on their own.

You cannot skip the process of making mistakes that will happen when you draw from life by forward-grinding boxes and perspective and constructive anatomy. It doesn't work like that. It never has, it never will. People who think otherwise are lying to themselves but they won't bullshit anyone else.

[Anonymous No.5092995]

>>5092938
no fucking shit they can be derived from life but why would you do that when the books literally spoonfeed you. literally faster to use a book lol.

imo probably the best way is to read a book then grind what the book teaches by drawing from life. there's no point isolating yourself from books only hurting yourself that way.

[Anonymous No.5093003]

>>5092315
Your question is very broad. I'm not sure how to answer it. What do you want out of drawing? You need to be able to at least begin to answer that question before you'll know where to look for solutions.
I tend not to believe in following a predesigned course to success, or one correct Way. Art learning has been improvisational for me. The answers you need now lie in your work and what you'd like your work to be. You see a thread-end going miles out, and you follow it. You don't know where it's going, but you have a hunch that based on what you know of that general direction, it'll lead you somewhere better. Maybe along the way you spot a different thread-end in a slightly better-feeling direction and you switch to that. The worst thing you can do is get stuck in your ways and to keep doing the same thing, whether your own idea or somebody else's advice, because a better idea hasn't occurred to you.
May not be the concrete answer you wanted but it's the closest I can get to providing an answer of how to "think" about art.

[Anonymous No.5093006]

>>5088486

Olson teaches about this in his series but nobody here ever finishes his course.

[Anonymous No.5093007]

>>5092995
>literally faster to use a book lol
No it isn't. You didn't read what I said, did you?

[Anonymous No.5093064]

>>5087374
...no comment on that anatomy

[Anonymous No.5093114]

>>5093007
i did and you claim that reading a book and studying it is somehow slower than figuring it out on your own? how is it faster to figure something out from scratch compared to someone literally telling you how to do it

[Anonymous No.5093386]

>>5086348
Is that Hilldawg?

[Anonymous No.5093455]

>>5093114
Vilppu literally has an example of this bullshit in his book: he’s got students who are doctors who can’t draw. Is their knowledge of muscle insertions and innervation helping them? Marginally, and tangentially.

Drawing is a separate thing that can only be developed through practice. Read sparingly. Use your time wisely. You don’t need 100th book on anatomy for anime artists. It’s pathetic to think otherwise. Moreover, a book can’t correct your mistakes and if you’re a beginner you can’t even identify them, but that’s a separate discussion.

[Anonymous No.5093813]

>>5092315
>As a /beg/ right now, what should I actually be doing

Learning how to draw. The actual physical and mental skill of draftsmanship.

Jumping head first into anatomy is a huge mistake that a lot of artists make. The vast majority of aspiring artists who know they want to learn to draw well start off jumping into anatomy. But frankly anatomy is an advanced topic.

If you can't put what you see in front of you on a sheet of paper with the analytical judgments to make it translate into a good drawing, you have no business learning the names of muscles and how they look on a cadaver.

[Anonymous No.5093823]

>>5093813
IM TALENTLESS ANON FUCK OFF
I DONT HAVE THE TALENT
ITS USELESS

[Anonymous No.5093846]

>>5086024
Yeah bridgman's drawings suck for learning.

[Anonymous No.5093853]

>>5093823
Start with Michael Matesse - Force Drawing. He has an entire YouTube channel filled with free content.

His Force "system" uses the figure to teach specifically his concept of Force which can be applied to all kinds of subjects. But because the figure is simply a medium for him to teach this concept through there is no over emphasis on anatomy.

[Anonymous No.5093857]

>>5093853
More specifically, it's a great way to think about using line and shape and what makes good, forceful lines and shapes which have a sense of weight and gravity and which can be used to make interesting drawings.

[Anonymous No.5093876]

>>5093853
>>5093857
Even that I think is too advanced of a topic for /beg/ tier people. At that point you need to be comfortable with putting down lines with good sweeps to know what a "gesture" of a line is.

I'd go back to basics. Put an object in front of you, use a single light source like a sun light, and try to draw it with clean lines and indicate the light and dark shapes. Basically, a tonal still life study. Simpler yet, find an image online of various casts or NMA skulls, models, whatever, so that way you can open up photoshop or get your sketchbook out and sit there for as long as you need to drawing it out.

Here: https://www.google.com/search?q=new+masters+academy+life+model&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMhPaX8fHtAhXZVs0KHbCOCRMQ_AUoAXoECAoQAw&cshid=1609200021797438&biw=1920&bih=1129

Too many times I see people trying to force a quick "gesture" study when it's clear they have zero observation skills and can't even tell what leg the weight is resting on because they have been sold the bullshit idea that they should put the cart before the horse, and draw quick before they can draw accurately or with intelligence.

[Anonymous No.5093882]

>>5093876
I agree. Force was just the first "basic" drawing concept that popped into my head because it focuses on laying line and shape. It just so happens to teach the concept through the figure.

But certainly, another trap beginning artists fall into is focusing on "gesture drawing" as something separate from drawing.

[Anonymous No.5093900]

a little help. im checking out gottfried bammes because of this thread. does this guy only analyze others work? also how do i even tell the translated and its counterpart book? wikipedia listed him having 11 books as partial publisher. it's easy for the obvious name, but some translated to shape of man or somethin?

[Anonymous No.5093910]

>>5085960
You scrubs are just not ready for hogarth.

[Anonymous No.5093921]

>>5093910
DESU Hogarth was the first real art book I picked up and took seriously as a teenager. I had already "read" Bridgman but I didn't know how to actually study it, or Hogarth for that matter.

But I've always been a fan of Hogarth and I think is Dynamic Drapery book is amazing. Especially the cover.

[Anonymous No.5093948]

>>5085960
It's not for beginners.

I had to learn artist anatomy before learning Hogarth. I hate his drawings but they helped me.

Sometimes things that help us in the long run ain't always pretty.

[Anonymous No.5093950]

>>5093910
This is actually a real thing:

http://www.transparentdrawing.com/raphaels-pantheon/

https://www.nexusjournal.com/the-nexus-conferences/nexus-2008/187-n2008-luce.html

"Raphael's drawing adheres to no known graphic or projective system, and yet it shares qualities with not only orthography and perspective, but also cartography. It mediates between conflicting systems of architectural knowledge and seeks a resolution between the geometry of representation and the geometry of architecture."

People who discredit Hogarth for not applying the rules of some bullshit made up "linear perspective" but don't give him any credit for how he's able to get his points across in such an easy, blunt way, are full of shit.

Keep putting your hands over your ears and keep grinding your 100 boxes, yeah that's the GMI path yeah.

[Anonymous No.5093959]

>>5093910
Let them rot

[Anonymous No.5093965]

>>5093921
Hogarth's drapery was the original Force. He didn't need Vilppu to tell him to feel the form, or Hampton to spoonfeed him what a cylinder is. But you kids are too retarded and bluepilled to see greatness when it's right in front of you.

He didn't just study the Renaissance artists, he transcended them. What a chad. Picrel. If you aren't opening the doors like that, you aren't doing it right.

[Anonymous No.5094312]

>>5087374
every opinion youve had has been completely disregarded

[Anonymous No.5094334]

Or perhaps we draw like cartoons

[Anonymous No.5094375]

>>5085978
his style looks nothing like Michelangelo.

Michelangelo looks closer to bridgman.

[Anonymous No.5094380]

>>5085977
The cover is actually good. I don't understand why he chose that kind of shading though - it looks too plastic.