/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.7013279]

I fell for the meme

[Anonymous No.7013316]

I don't even know what Hogarth was thinking when he made these books. They're just so eccentric and psychadelic

[Anonymous No.7013336]

>>7013279
Is the last one a swastika?

[Anonymous No.7013354]

>>7013336
nein you fucking anti semite
I'll drag you into my rape tunnels if you don't stop this shit right now

[Anonymous No.7013360]

Hogarth is fucking based. You could hardly ask for a better "meme" to fall for

[Anonymous No.7013370]

>>7013279
dynamic poses just for the sake of being dynamic are retarded.

[Anonymous No.7013376]

failures always blaming the tools

[Anonymous No.7013396]

>>7013279
That guy only draws men, he's not like Chad Loomis who draws women and men alike, which makes me think that he was either a faggot or he just didn't know how to draw women.

[Anonymous No.7013400]

>>7013279
I like it!

[Anonymous No.7013401]

>>7013336
Like the California Zionist shit you consume, feed the parasite bibi butcher

[Anonymous No.7013410]

>>7013396
Both. He can only draw men because they're all he thinks about. Nibba probably tells himself he's straight because he only thinks about guys while jerking to Atomic Kitten videos.

[Anonymous No.7013449]

>>7013396
Hogarth drew better women than Loomis

[Anonymous No.7013459]

>>7013336
It's the final solution to drawing drapery.

[Anonymous No.7013577]

>>7013396
Spoken like a man who never opened a Hogarth book. He drew a lotta tiddy.

[Anonymous No.7013589]

>>7013449
> Hogarth has A Bigger Penis than booooomises
> That's because howgayart like them bigg looooooool you suck
Every. Mf. Time.

>>7013410
>Atomic Kitten
Dangerous click of the day. Worse part is probably that I didn't knew I knew. Wow, 90s bro. 90s.

[Anonymous No.7013602]

>>7013449
look this bullshit, is a generic lineart shit of his time

[Anonymous No.7013650]

>>7013459
top kek

[Anonymous No.7013653]

>>7013602
esls can't criticize Americans.

[Anonymous No.7013654]

>>7013449
>that ribcage to pelvis ratio
>those shoulders
That's a man baby.

[Anonymous No.7013779]

>>7013336
yes

[Anonymous No.7013784]

>>7013779
A classic

[Anonymous No.7013998]

>>7013279
His instructional books make a lot more sense when you see his finished work.

[Anonymous No.7014002]

>>7013998
copy tarzan twice

[Anonymous No.7014021]

>>7013279
so do we actually get to see your work before and after? or is this theoretical only?

[Anonymous No.7014770]

>>7013279
His head drawing book is unadulterated kino.

[Anonymous No.7014778]

>>7013316
baki ahh ahh piece

[Anonymous No.7015107]

>>7013316
I don’t have a wedgie for Hogarth but I do own most if not all of his books, and have done some copies here and there. A number of people on /ic/ have.

In Hogarth’s time he was carrying the torch of the traditional, renaissance artists. There is this historic backdrop during the early/mid 20th century that Illustrators, and by extent comic book draftsmen, were the successors to the classical art system, as many of them studied in ateliers abroad and brought their knowledge back to US. Every atelier today owes their existence to these people.

Hogarth no doubt was not only classically trained, but he very much treated his classes as sessions for blueprints of what to look for when drawing. Of course people don’t look like that. But take a look at a Raphael or a Michelangelo - they’re stylized and look nothing like real people. So it’s all based on systematic design languages. Hogarth just goes all out but he pays homage to Michelangelo most of all.

You can also see a video of him doing a head drawing lesson for a class of students, it’s on YouTube.

Not a meme at all. Hogarth was an artist’s artist and was revered even in his time.

[Anonymous No.7015120]

>>7015107
damn, you're making me want to break out my Hogarth and do some studies from him

[Anonymous No.7015310]

>>7013654
you're a retard baby

[Anonymous No.7015314]

>>7013336
herr hogarth

[Anonymous No.7015316]

>>7013279
One of the most overrated (at least on ic) art teachers imo.

[Anonymous No.7016475]

[Anonymous No.7016488]

I haven't read much Hogarth aside from this book. I studied from it quite a bit, tried to do the Frazetta style "copy the entire book front to back" thing a few years back. Honestly, it helped a lot. He draws some nice hands.

[Anonymous No.7016490]

>>7016488
Because his diagrams are so, so, so detailed, it made drawing simplified hands much easier. Understanding the ins and outs of the muscles, tendons, bones, etc. meant I could make more informed decisions of which details to leave in and which to leave out. I'm sure the same goes for his figures and bizarre, Jojo-esque anatomy drawings.

[Anonymous No.7016530]

>>7013279
>>7013316
lmao these books are only useful if you're an aspiring 1940s pulp novel artist. I laugh at all the retarded animefags that were forced to draw hyper realistic 1940s men and still learned nothing except drawing unappealing anime characters with realistic proportions but cartoony anime faces.

[Anonymous No.7016546]

>>7013998
It's still kind of shit and modern artists are better.

[Anonymous No.7016553]

>>7013998
This is the ultimate example of perfectly drawn but ZERO appeal.

[Anonymous No.7016570]

Why not just copy drawings in the skill you wish to emulate?

[Anonymous No.7016644]

>>7013279
top left has that art deco aesthetic

[Anonymous No.7017553]

>>7016475
why does the loomis side has periods in every sentence while Hogarth's doesn't?

[Anonymous No.7017593]

>>7013370
Low IQ take but understandable.

[Anonymous No.7017595]

>>7015316
Your opinion don't matter.

[Anonymous No.7017835]

>>7013376
Some tools are fucking abysmal pieces of shit created only for the sake of farming money from beginners who don't know any better (like drawabox). Blaming the victim is retarded when there are predators like that out there.

If you genuinely think Hogarth did a fine job and OP studied it wrong, that's fine, but at least be constructive with your criticism.

[Anonymous No.7019487]

>>7017835
>comparing Hogarth to fucking drawabox
I'm not that guy, but if you want constructive criticism and not a less-than-a-sentence dismissal, you should actually post something substantive rather than a less-than-a-sentence dismissal yourself.

[Anonymous No.7019537]

>>7017835
Drawing instruction has in general a problem of setting expectation. Hogarth is no exception here, but he’s a good example because his drawings are so out there that it trips people up. Something is off about people praising the work of such a caricaturist, that the beginners don’t quite get it. So they say Hogarth is a meme or is bad etc.

What it’s about is learning to crawl before you can walk. I would only recommend Hogarth to someone who already knows how to draw reasonably well - ie. can passably capture impression they see, can copy relatively well, can break down a complicated structure. His books, like many other study oriented books, should really be picked up by someone who can copy the works at leisure. You have to trace the steps along the way as if you’re having a conversation.

The issue is, these books can’t always spell things out for you. There isn’t enough text that Hogarth can write to cover it all. So he can give you a summary and expects you to copy the rest to assimilate his thoughts. The better you “see” his drawings, the more you gain from his approach. Again, you cannot get this if you’re just starting out, because you’re hitting obstacles that should have been ironed out by now.

Hogarth isn’t high art by any means. His drawings are instructive. But he has a life’s worth of knowledge in there and you’ll never go wrong with knowing what he knows.

As I said, very common problem. Hogarth isn’t for teaching drawing but most try to use it like it is. It’s brutally hard.

Not that anon, I’m the one from earlier giving the history lesson. AMA.

[Anonymous No.7019657]

>>7013370
What a retarded opinion. Why do people find stuff like Jojo so iconic and visually appealing for if not for the extremely dynamic art? Dynamic poses just for the sake of dynamic poses is striking and literally god-tier. You're just coping because it's beyond your skill.

[Anonymous No.7019778]

>>7013336
i have that exact book and didn't notice it was the swastika until now

[Anonymous No.7019781]

>>7013279
Imagine Marko was baiting this whole time
He probably isn't though, Hogarth is actually pretty good

[Anonymous No.7020459]

>>7013998
>>7013279
Really rustles my jimjams that the wrinkle's covers look different than the others

[Anonymous No.7022573]

[Anonymous No.7022751]

Was Burne Hogarth really gay?

[Anonymous No.7022774]

>>7013316
Fuck man, that looks like absolute curry shit tier.

>>7013449
Looks like a drag queen

>>7016475
Hogarth drawings always look like xerox render shit

>>7016490
Why do the knuckles look like penises? Was penis always on this man's mind or what?
>Never married
>No children
>Homoerotic fascism swastika
Makes sense

[Anonymous No.7022827]

>>7022774
lmao this nigger seeing penises everywhere is accusing someone of homosexuality
why are rightoids like this??

[Anonymous No.7022841]

>>7022774
Dude was married and had 3 children.

His art reads more like a guy who wants to draw men but never took the time to look at irl men