/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2128997
I hope this picture solves some stuff for you.

>>2104069
Anons screaming Loomis at everything is a running joke, yes--- but it does have some use.
Truth is, while Loomis is a good source, he's not a ends all be all for gittin' gud. He focuses pretty well on anatomy, construction, and composition, and he's good at using proper rhythm in his lines. IMO he isn't so good at showing how to draw women, as he tends to keep them fairly idealized and same-face, whereas with men, there's much more variety. If you're looking at Loomis, it helps to flip through all his books and focus the plates you find the most useful. Even his "cartoony" expressions in the plate you posted have a purpose that isn't necessarily best/easiest represented by saying "Just copy someone IRL and you're done."

Ideally, you should be looking at a bunch of different sources to learn different things. There's no reason to focus solely on Loomis in the same way there's no reason to focus solely on Hogarth or even just focus on studying real life. They're all good methods, and studying all of them is the best way to keep rounded.