/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

fundamentals are learned like this:
>anatomy
1. learn about gesture, body proportions, and all that shit that has to do with figure drawing.
2. learn the actual anatomy. it's much fucking easier than you think. literally get a book that maps out all of the relevant bones and muscles (atlas of the human anatomy), I promise it'll take less than a week to memorize all their names, insertions and origins. Once you do, everything will get SO much easier.
3. play with what you learned and get mileage, as long as you know the shit above, it'll be fun.
>perspective
1. learn 1, 2, and 3 point perspective. again, it's not fucking difficult to understand what they are, once you do, it's just applying it and practicing construction, boxes, ellipses etc. The most frustrating part is not understanding what something means or how to do it, that's not a problem because there are tutorials for everything, or just ask.
2. trickiest part: learn photoshop tricks and shortcuts so you won't be drawing lines back to the vanishing point for everything, like the blue guidelines and the polygon star.
3. again, play with what you learned and just get the milage. once you know what the fuck you're doing, it's actually fun.
>color, values, realism, everything else
STUDIES.

if I had done this, I would have been a pro in 2 years *max*.

>>3212336
lol so youre going to meme yourself again, nice.

>>3212336
>practicing construction, boxes, ellipses
fuck this method
literally no artist before some time in the middle of the 20th century has used this sterile, misleading shit of a concept. it distracts from developing any artistic intuition.
you are promoting a method that is misleading. if you want to make concept art bullshit, sure, go for it. character design crap for vidya, go for it. if you want to become an artist, hands off all this shit teaching with "one box here, same size there, vanishing points! measuring!!! segments of the body!" …

this kid who studies sculpture in Milano showed me his plastics. just some plain old sculptures, realism, strict teaching. it looked fairly good, if a little boring. lots of details, correct proportions.
when this was asked to draw a face from scratch, it was nothing! it was equal to the skills of any random kid with no interest in art and no practice.

doctrine, schematic teaching and generic learning books do nothing for you. best case, you get a hint of motivation to go do your own works, worst case: you ruin your entire expectations, outlooks and development potential, because you can't forget thinking in boxes, measuring and all that shit when really what you would need to do is look with your own eyes and build an intuition.

>>3212312
Don't masturbate at the beggining of the day

>>3212312
oh Loomis this fucking piece of shit. Loomis everywhere!
>MAH LOOMIS!
fuck that old fart and his bland, generic bullshit drawing.
have you heard any great artist of today say
>Oh, if it wasn't for Loomis …
>I've learned everything I need from Loomis' books …
No. No great artist out there has resorted to Loomis. And for a good reason.

>>3214411
>literally no artist before some time in the middle of the 20th century has used this sterile, misleading shit of a concept. it distracts from developing any artistic intuition.
why dont you go back to spreading cholera and dying before you hit 40 if you like the pre-20th century so much, have you ever considered that the reason it is taught that way today is because it is way better than flopping around hoping you'll catch onto shit to make it part of your 'intuition' when you could have just been taught it?

>>3214432
>pleb revealed himself
first of all, i'm talking about artists: painters

you can't teach artistic intuition, you have to learn it, ingrain it in your mind through constant practice. it means wiring your brain to develope an eye for shapes, contrast and composition. to achieve a very short distance from your motive in front of you to the idea you want to bring to the canvas or paper.

so what is Loomis doing? he promotes a drawing school that could teach a stock broker, a car mechanic, any idiot with no talent to draw mediocre portraits.

if you are just as much of a lowfi artist, you can't see the hundreds of mistakes. you can't see beyond the try-hard little masturbation over details, which neglect a balanced allover image


look at this reference
http://i.4cdn.org/ic/1509822601735.jpg

and look at this bland shit
http://i.4cdn.org/ic/1511215349547.jpg

this sketch is from a guy who uses exactly these schematic aids, which are completely distracting from translating your impression of the motive. instead, you end up concentrating on something that is basically not different from "painting by numbers"

any fucking idiot can practice mediocre sketching with Loomis and all the other fucktards. it means nothing. the results are not worth mentioning.

>>3214432

why did we never hear of a workshop like that of Rembrandt teaching
>"Oh look my students! If draw this retarded ellipse and that retarded line around it, you get the ear! It's the same for every person! It's anatomy for Dummies!"

because it's bullshit. that's why you've never heard about this in any point in art history. this retarded shit has only been around for some 50 to 70 years and is simply a means of making money with selling books to idiots like the likes of you.

>>3214411
>>3214414
>>3214472
I my be revealed as a turbobeg here (because I am), but Loomis' method doesn't seem that new to me. Da Vinci's Vitruvian man shows that he resorted to similar methods, at least when finding basic proportions (measuring heads) and posing. I assume that he did the same to maintain proper body ratios when dealing with foreshortening.

>>3214498
Forgot pic.

>>3214411
I would argue that you are wrong. Plenty of artist used construction way before 20th century heres a example of Leonardo using a grid to figure out his composition and placement of things.

>>3214514
Here is a famous example of Luca Cambiaso using boxes to figure (ha ha ha) out his figures.

>>3214514
Here is a drawing of a vase by Paolo Uccello. Would you argue that he did not use some type of constrution in this drawing?

>>3214411
Here is Jans Vredeman de Vries clerly using construction for his benefit.

>>3214514
>>3214517
>>3214515

DaVinci, Cambias, Paolo Uccello etc knew already what they are doing and they've already achieved a very high understanding for plasticity.

None of them have started out by drawing boxes and balls.

learning the Loomis method before you even had a chance to develope your own style is doing things back to front.

you are polluting your understanding with drawing schemes and templates and you'll have a hard time breaking out of that.

>>3214411
Joseph Mallord William Turner`s study of how to draw a cube in foreshortening.

>>3214526
architecture

>>3214517
object

>>3214499
not a single sign of Loomis'
>the head is a ball
>the torso is three or so boxes
>first you draw balls and boxes and dividing lines and there's your finished stick figure

Loomis is a celebrated retardation in art.

>>3214499

Loomis and the likes have derived their knowledge entirely from old masters and especially from the measuring of DaVinci.
But what they've created is merely a "drawing for dummies".
If you follow their method, you basically confess that you are either too lazy to build your own understanding or are incapable of doing so. you are learning it by the Dummy method, because nothing else can help you.

and, ironically enough, most of the time, people who use this method end up drawing like beginners forever.

>>3214532
cont.

because you never h a v e to understand it. it's laid out for you. The Loomis method and every other similar approach - there's a reason why there is a shitload of these books by different, mediocre authors out there - represents a crutch to those incapable of doing their own genuine work.

why do you have these red, shiny noses trending in todays comic illustrations all around?
why do so many people copy the style of cartoon characters, like the pointy noses from adventure time?

because they are lazy. most illustrators are merely copying existing trends. they are basically producing generic, functional artworks without any aspiration for originality. and why would they? it's all laid out for them. the industry wants a certain color palette, a certain style … "do it like this guy!" "we want cartoon characters like this for our ad!" … it's fucking boring. and these are the people here on /ic/ that call themselves "artists". give me a fucking break. they are content with their school friends saying "wow, that is so great! I could never draw like that!" and their moms saying "you are so good!"

>>3214527
Was not the argument, that:"literally no artist before some time in the middle of the 20th century has used this sterile, misleading shit of a concept"? All the examples prove that, they did indeed use construction.

I am not argue, that should you or should you not use Loomis, seeing as I never used his books my self. But trashing constructive drawing is stupid in my opions, it is a strong method to draw thinks from memory or from imagination.

English is also not my native tongue, so mayby I just missed something here?

>>3214531
What about >>3214515
and pic related?

>>3214536
>Was not the argument,
yes! and it's still the same argument. you don't start off with: "oh, i'll just draw it all with seven boxes here, same diameter ball here, one dividing line there aaand done!"

if you want to stick to generic, bland illustration style, sure. use it, by all means. but you are not developing.

Do you think El Greco has found his style and mannerism, because he started out drawing boxes and spheres, because "it's much easier"?
it's not supposed to be easy. that is the whole point. you can't cheat your way past building your own understanding. you will end up with deficites all over (good anatomy ratio, poor overview … or, precise cross-hatching, but it doesn't support the form at all etc. etc.) … and you don't even notice, because, again, you lack the understanding all together. you are thinking in boxes and spheres and ratios.

>>3214539
My apologies, you meant where you start from. I I agree, that one should not start with construction or drawing boxes/ellipse and what not, but with just plain old drawing. that is how I at least started, by just drawing thinks around me, people/objects/animals/buildings etc. But saying construction is not a good method, is something I will have to disagree with you on.As I said: It is an extremely good method for imaginative drawing and drawing thinks from your memory. I cannot argue its merits on figure drawing as I have yet to apply it to figures.

>>3212312
Is this watercolour or something else? Copics maybe?

>>3212312
1. memory drawing == imagination drawing
2. no matter how many photos you will photocopy, you will not start one day to suddenly be able to draw from imagination whatever you want

>>3214536
>Literally using the only master artist that used boxes as an example.
If I remember correctly, that was also late in his career when he started doing boxes, which is proof enough that learning boxes first is a meme.

>>3214557
Yeah, I misunderstood the argument>>3214544

>>3214544

constructing your objects, when you already have a great understanding of shape, weight, depth, proportion etc is legitimate.
but as a newbie, you should never ever resort to any old farts "school of schematic balls and boxes" ... it clouds your mind.

>>3214557
>>3214548
exactly

Have fun.

It's not worth it.

>>3214600
I got what you meant wrong, sorry anon, my bad.

>>3212312
>I wish someone told me not to copy Loomis and instead focus only on proportion and feature placement.

exactly true. It's so easy to make that mistake. Just copying with no understanding of what the goal is, can be the worst.

I would tell my younger self that it's just a canvas and that I should have fun painting on it instead of being afraid of mistakes or "wasting materials". That actually kept me from using oil paints for years.

>>3214616
no big deal.
it's just surprising to me how people really believe that you should start by learning how to draw in that painting-by-numbers fashion that Loomis and his retarded collegues teach.
I blame it on those books that this notion seems to persist. "I read my Loomis, I know how to draw and paint well!"

Put a few boxes in front of you. Then draw a straight line about half an inch from the bottom of the format. You strech your arm out with a pencil in it, rotate the pencil so it overlaps with the closest edge of the closest box. With your arm still streched, transfer pencil position to the format. Use both hands if needed, one to define direction of an edge, other one to mark the dots of direction on paper. Draw a straight line. Using the same principle, you measure directions and points using diagonals or straight lines.

Closest and bottom edges are always darker and more distant edges are thinner and brighter. That way you get the effect of an object in space. Try doing a shitload of linear drawings before getting into value and shadows, you won't do it correctly and it will waste your time. When you get your linear drawings to look good, try adding modelation (value) that cooperates with lines. Also linear doesn't mean conture lines only, feel free to add line here and there.

Next thing is materialisation, try to represent each material using only lines.

Also do a lot of autoportraits USING MIRROR. Drawing from life is also a must if you want to learn how to draw. When you get your study drawings to look good or at least decent, then you can start sketching out things from imagination.

If affordable, best thing would be for you to get a mentor who will work with you.

Good luck :)

>>3214414
>>3214532
>>3214535
Post your work bro, I want to be as inspired by your art as I am by your words. Teach me the things loomis never could; I beg of you!

>>3214992
I mean, you're not some histrionic blowhard faggot that literally can't draw anything and never will be able to draw anything are you? You're not a human photocopy machine, right? You don't use men exclusively for reference in your sculptures and put cantaloupe slices on their pecs to portray women like Michelangelo did do you? I want to see what you've accomplished and be truly inspired by what you've done, just as I am by the wisdom you're imparting us with now.

anti loomis guy, please, please, please, please post your work

>>3214413
Why

>>3214998
someone is pissed that anon has criticized his favorite retard teaching book, me thinks.

>>3215003
More like he wants someone to back up their meaningless advice

>>3215008
tell me how it's meaningless, my friend.

>>3215009
Because you don't even draw or you sure as hell don't draw well enough to tell people to discard proven techniques from Loomis/Vilppu/KJG etc.; so you should probably just shut the hell up lmoa

>>3215011
nice way of refuting absolutely nothing, pal.
and i love how you assume stuff on no basis.

are you uncomfortable, because that shit with boxes and schemes is exactly how you started out, bitchboi? why else would you defend this Drawing or Dummies kind of bullshit?

>>3215003
Oh no, don't give that shit now.
I don't use loomis to learn, but someone who criticizes loomis (and almost any other method) like that would surely be able to show the difference between generic loomis /ic/ artwork and wathever it is they can accomplish by their own means.
Just one picture, and all loomis crabs (and myself for being skeptic of anon) would be BTFO.
>>3215009
It is meaningless if it doesn't produce results. And don't cheat by posting master drawings either. You know very well they would be capable of achieving a masterpiece with wathever method they choose if they where alive today.

> What art advice would you give yourself when starting out?

In no particular order:

* Stop drawing shitty comics. If you must, take an existing professional comic and copy a handful of the panels, then change them in some way. (nb. i back in grade 4 i would draw comics from le imagination, i didn't know any artists and i wasn't artistically gifted; never told my parents i wanted to get into arts, so i dropped it for some time due to lack of progress and lack of interest)

* Your teacher has no idea how to properly teach hatching. She doesn't seem to even know how to draw. Look at old masters like Durer and Michelangelo to see how it's done.

* Draw more objects around you. Use part of the object to judge proportion to the whole. Use your eyes to judge proportion, leave perspective studies for later.

* Get the contours and the big values down cold. Clean contour lines.

* Normal pencils have a versatile range of values. Use a softer touch for lighter values and really render the fucker out.

* Finish the study, don't leave it half done because you're too lazy.

* You'll like sculpture more than you think and it will feel like the real thing when you do a good enough job. Study old masters of the art like Michelangelo and Rodin.

* Vilppu's approach will be confusing at first, but you will end up liking it the most.

* Memorize by drawing. If someone's posture captures your attention, memorize the thing that interested you, and draw it. You won't forget it for a long time.

nb. Most of the things we have today like NMA, 3D modeling/sculpting, digital painting etc weren't around when I was growing up so I'm leaving all of that out.

>>3215012
It's more like professionals have started exactly like that and you have nothing backing up your bullshit

>>3215012
>you assume stuff on no basis

It's on you to prove you can draw. Feel free to do that any time, crab.

>>3215015
>"professionals"

give me some good examples of artists (not your ad illustration and comic book illustrators) who have STARTED out by drawing from Loomis and the likes.

>>3215017
>>3215013
if you seriously think i'd upload my works to 4can, you are a hopeless case.

i've just returned from a two month scholarship from the state. i was in eastern europe in a rented studio, all space just for me, everything paid for, including living cost and materials. i live off of my art. i don't give a shit if you don't believe me, but i sure as hell won't upload my artwork.

when i was studying, i saw people who had started out with loomis and also on online platforms a lot of folks have never in all these years developed beyond the mediocre Loomis teaching. one guy in particular was stuck in his dead end style, lacking liveliness and character allover. but he stuck to his teaching bullshit from the start like his life depended on it.

you sound offended and butthurt, if you ask me. did you start out with any such method book?

>>3215029
Scott Robertson.

Either post your work or anything resembling proof or this is your last (you)

>>3215029
>I don't give a shit if you don't believe me

lmao, opinion disregarded as usual. Fuck off dunning-kruger crab

>>3215033
that is a conceptual artist. his works are purely functional, he sells his works for movies or other shit. mostly commissions.

i'm talking about artists. Michael Borremans, Marlene Dumas, Georg Baselitz, Luc Tuymans, Paul Noble ....

I won't post any of my works, you complete moron. I'm a painter, not a retarded conceptual artist.

>>3215036
You won't post your work here because you don't have any work to post you twat, just kill yourself already

>>3215034
it's funny how you try to reverse my saying that people who can't draw are led to believe that after reading and practicing from Loomis, they b e l i e v e they can suddenly draw .....
i think you have trouble following my arguments.

>>3215029
Anon, thanks for your insight.

I thought Loomis teaches construction recipes for quickly getting in the proportions and the like.The liveliness of the person that you wish to express through drawing/painting is up to you once you have the basic things down, no?

Why would his teachings, or the teachings of anyone like him for that matter, debilitate artists so much?

What kind of approach do you have in mind?

>>3215029
>le 'I can't let my work be tracked back through 4chins' maymay

If you're good at art - not even great, just GOOD, just ADEQUATE - it will be trivial for you to draw something not in your own style and post it here. If you were a working artist, you'd have piles of drawings like that just lying around from experimentation and brainstorming. But you aren't adequate. You're a shitter.

>>3215040
>Why would his teachings, or the teachings of anyone like him for that matter, debilitate artists so much?
read >>3214532
and >>3214535

earlier >>3214468

>What kind of approach do you have in mind?
Draw from real life. Draw classmates, people waiting, sitting, reading in public. Draw objects. Copy techniques of your favorite artists. Draw everyday.

When I was in school, I filled one to three A4 pages with drawings on an average day. I was sketching our teachers, classmates, objects, curtains, weird stuff from imagination, even creating my own fonts for comic drawing.

I resented the use of any color for about four years. In that time, I solely drew cross hatchings with ink, pencils and felted pens. i was afraid of the cost of oil and the weight that it puts on you to paint on canvas. as i was accepted into art uni, i started painting with oil and that's what i've sticked to eversince. i do draw and sketch a lot still, but i've almost completely given up on comics, because it doesn't mix well.

I've been practicing on a daily basis. there are several shoe boxes full of hundreds of sketches. and that's how you should ideally develope: you have an insatiable drive to draw and paint and you have no need to rely on a teacher.
my uni didn't teach anything regarding techniques. all we did was discuss and bounce ideas off of each other. it was an ideal place to flourish. and now i'm starting out as a free arstist and things might be tough, but i love what i do and it's a fultime commitment.

>>3215042
so if you don't believe me, i couldn't care less. i was always suspicious of these learning books you could get from Loomis and others. they seemed phoney to me and like you are being tricked. and from what i've seen, people who started out with these books have fashioned a major blockage in their brain and not much more than that.

>>3215051
>Draw from real life. Draw classmates, people waiting, sitting, reading in public. Draw objects. Copy techniques of your favorite artists. Draw everyday.

Thanks for your response.

Maybe I'm confused then. As I draw people I apply Loomis' head construction approach just to quickly block in the eye line, the nose, the jaw. Sometimes I'll make up my own construction lines if the person has say, a very pronounced cheekbone, or some kind of a shadow line design that i want to show. But then i do away with all of it when I articulate to get the likeness of the person I'm after.

Is this a terrible approach?

>>3215056
>Is this a terrible approach?

Yes. In my opinion, you couldn't do anything worse. The whole point of refining your perception and capability of rendering an impression you have of a person or object is completely lost, if you use schematics.

If you think someone has a remarkable chin line from a certain angle, you have a point to start working from! why would you want to disturb your perception by using these crutches? boxes, spheres and "correct" measuring. it's bullshit. there IS no correct measuring like Loomis tries to make you believe. almost every face is asymmetrical, and that's just one thing.

you look at the portraits by Egon Schiele and there's a good reason why there are no retarded spheres and hemisphere lines to measure "where the ear is supposed to be".

you draw heads and faces form all angles. all kinds of people, all kinds of different hairstyle and shapes. when i see a face that fascinates me, i sometimes just sit there and look at it and try to figure out what it is that draws my attention. i have such good memory that i can go home and make a decent sketch of that face in hindsight. all that is coming from practice.

when you've had enough practice, the distance between your motive and the image you create becomes shorter and shorter. you want to develope a good eye that keeps a solid after-image of what you've seen so that you can work freely and with confidence.

but even after almost ten years, i still only dare say that i've merely scratched the surface of what painting can be. and especially how i can deal with it and what i can bring to it.

Loomis teaches you how to get quick, pleasing results. once you think that every head is a sphere with a fixed ratio of where ears, nose and eyes belong, it's hard to shake that bullshit from your mind and create your own works.
you can feel this kind of distraction that result from these tricks. it's in the drawing. like a bad actor, the drawing won't leave a lasting impression.

>>3215064
>there IS no correct measuring like Loomis tries to make you believe. almost every face is asymmetrical, and that's just one thing.

Thing is - I don't use Loomis' measurements. I use his construction lines that I apply to the person I see. If their ear is slightly below their eye brow, my ear guidelines are below their eyebrow, et cetera.

I try to get a block in of the person I see, rather than Loomis' ideal. I do apply a ball or a box when it calls for it. If someone has a squarer chin I'll use straighter lines, if someone has a softer chin i'll use a curve, depending on what I see. I guess these are "construction gestures" in a sense.

I thought this is how you're supposed to apply Loomis, but at this point I have no idea.

Thanks for your insight. I would love to see some of your work (preferably the more realistic and less expressionist ones) but I understand your reasons for not wanting to post it.

>>3215075
Forgot to mention - I agree with you on starting from the thing that catches my attention. That's very often the first area I work on and then I fan out from there.

>>3215029
>did you start out with any such method book
I told you, I did not learn from loomis. I started from life drawing classes in my university.

>you sound offended and butthurt
I can play that game too. If I'm not confusing you with any other poster...
You sound really biased towards what you already do, and seem to consider every artist who isn't a painter like you, to be somewhat inferior.

>>3215051
Can't you tell the difference between an argument and a really hot opinion?

The thing is, you seem to believe these approaches are some kind of fixed set of rules from wich you cannot deviate, while in reality the idea behind them is get an abstract understanding of something (in this case, the human figure) and use it to develop wathever the fuck you want. You only use it as a base model. Loomis is not going to come out of the canvas, point a gun to your head and force you to follow the grid.

Lastly, you seem to only be drawing from reference or life, wich completely misses the point of these methods. You don't really *need* to construct something when it is already in front of you.

>>3215051
>I have boxes and boxes and boxes of drawings
>no, you can't see them

>>3215056
>Responding sincerely to a concern troll who shits on commercial art and then unironically defers to Egon "tumblr hands" Schiele for examples of what people should be doing

>>3215088
Schiele had some great works. You can't shit on Schiele for what tumblr and cheap illustration faggots have done and gangraped a running gag he had going with his weird finger positions.

>>3215086
do you want to see the empty boxes then?

>>3215088
in my book, commercial art is not art.
and yes, i do think that painting and free art works are superior to "digital painting" crap with your brush simmulations and your high-res prints.

>>3215094
>do you want to see the empty boxes then?

Posting photos of boxes would have been a witty reply, but it wouldn't change the fact that you're a charlatan.

>>3215097
>a charlatan
ha, i like you. my favorite word.

you can believe whatever you want. i could be a fraud, sure. but i'm writing all this with confidence. it's what i do, it's not even over the top or impressive, it's just trying to make a living and having fun doing it.

i am very passionate when it comes to things that i oppose, which is why i get very passionate about shit i hate like Loomis. i hate narcissists and i've seen a lot of students who use these books and they really are completely self-obsessed, while they have very little to offer and never even develope beyond "my boxes! my spheres! all correct!"

>>3215094
Sounds like you're a fine arts expressionist fag like Chum Bum, but without seeing your work I wouldn't dare assume you're even at that guy's seriously aughable level. Go make your post-modern macaroni pictures while being crushed by your student debt somewhere else you tool lmao

>>3215102
no student debt here, mate. I don't live in a retarded nation that leaves its student in debt for years to come, because you've made a choice to educate yourself. very good education system here (apart from some minor issues).

I'm not an expressionist, I can tell you that. There aren't any significant art movements anymore and you wouldn't want to label yourself with a term from yesteryear.
I don't know a Chum Bum and am too lazy to look him up. And I don't like macaroni.

Show your work, if you're so keen. I might like it. I can't help being honest, even to someone who's trying hard to talk shit about me.

>>3215106
>refuses to show his work while talking hard shit throughout this and other threads
>asks me to show my work
Bruh...

>>3215108

why so shy? are you an e x p r e s s i o n i s t yourself??

>>3215097
>>3215098
>>3215108

it's getting very late. was fun. i guess

oh and FUCK Loomis
i'm out

>>3215116
I just want to draw anime people well enough for personal fun, what advice do you have for me?
There are no life-drawing classes where I live

You know what you want to do. It will not come easy. Start practicing now.
It's going to suck but don't fucking stop.

Otherwise, you'll regret wasting 10 full years, you spineless, autistic middle schooler.
Go fuck yourself. If they invent a time machine in my lifetime, I'm jumping in and I'm going to beat the ever living shit out of your useless ass.

>>3215137
I have absolutely no advice for you. I wouldn't know the first thing about drawing manga and I really don't care about it either.

>>3214999
nice trips
and personally it just drains all my energy

>>3215329
Faggot

>>3212312
I would tell myself to start with charles bargue drawing course instead of shitty key for drawing and other /beg/ trash that doesn't help at all. Then get all the content about the reilly method, especially resources from Ron Lemen, Erik Gist, Watts Atelier and use loomis as a standart ONLY.

Lastly I would tell my 19 years old to don't coast just because learned to draw faces. I lost almost 2 years in my comfort zone.

>>3215108
He's not as good at figure drawing as Loomis was, that's all. There's literally no other reason why he's can't just show some insignificant sketch he made.

>>3216160
Hi I'm back. So you wanted to see some stuff I did, WITHOUT ever resorting to any fucking Loomis or other art charlatan. Loomis, in all honesty, is for pussies.

This was a simple exercise, drawing from objects placed on the table in front of you.

>>3219427
>>3216160
>>3215108
>>3215102

cont.
Here's a portrait I did from a movie screenshot. No grid, no tracing, no editing the screenshot, just straight drawing from the screen, took me about 30 to 50mins.

I'm bored of realism as works per se. I love doing it once in a while and I use realism for certain projects, but all this Loomis bullshit is a bland "Drawing for Dummies" apporach and you will suck even worse than before, the only difference being that you actively deceive yourself into thinking it's not the case.

So, for you Loomis cunts out there that like to defend him so much, show YOUR work now.

(This portrait of a boy is almost six years old, the bone drawing is nine years old and i was twenty at the time and had not read ANY of this drawing school shit, which was frowned upon by everyone in my uni)

>>3219427
>>3219430
>I had not read ANY of this drawing school shit

Then I'm sorry to say but in that case you don't know anything about it and you've discredited yourself. We already know that most of the people here want to learn to draw primarily from imagination for the purposes of creating cartoons, comics, video games etc. and that's what understanding the various rules expounded in books is for. Not everyone wants to sit around doing sight-size drawing with old ladies forever (Admittedly I've done just that and I've enjoyed it-but it's a time consuming process and I'm focusing my attention and energy elsewhere for the time being).

>arm study, 7 min.

>>3219650
>most of the people here want to learn to draw primarily from imagination for the purposes of creating cartoons, comics, video games

That's what I came to realize. Hardly anyone in here wants to discuss anything outside of these fields, anything really related to actual art pieces.

As you say you've done drawing from life models, you seem to have missed the whole point of the excercise. The human eye works completely different from the lense of a camera. If you work from life models, you create pieces that are based on the optics of your own eyes, rather than that of a camera lense with working from photographs.

You can derive ideas and concepts for paintings from life drawings, which can be very rich and useful ideas. Then again, this is for fine art and hardly anyone in here seems to understand that there is a distinction between illustration artists and fine artists.

>>3219665

Your drawing are run of the mill hobbyist copies from photos. It's what a beginner can produce with a little training. Why do you think you're some kind of authority?

>>3219676
the bone was from a real bone in front of me on the table, you complete asswipe.
the portrait of the boy was just me passing time while I was watching the movie "Das Schloss" (based on a Kafka text) and decided I want to draw his face.

my main focus in my work is not doing realistic, scholastic and traditional sketches of people. i use this to excercise and i've uploaded them as a neutral comparison, bc i was asked to.

what kind of authority are you then?
I'd buy a Loomis, just to wipe my ass with it and burn the rest of the pages.

>>3219680
>my main focus in my work is not doing realistic, scholastic and traditional sketches of people.

So what's your focus? Making drawings that look bad on purpose?

>>3219685

at the center of my work is a theme that i explore from a lot of angles. i try to first formulate my own theory on something, possibly make connections to other areas that haven't been made yet, then i do research, i read into it, make a lot of sketches and formulate a concept. i paint either single works or a whole series within the time of a year or until i feel that i've explored it enough. and then i work getting it out there, have an exhibition.

on the side, i've illustrated two books in a comic style for commissions. I don't do commissions in painting though.

Making "shitty" art works on purpose can also be a valid concept, if you know what you are doing.

Like George Condo:
http://www.christies.com/lotfinderimages/D58954/george_condo_portrait_of_a_noble_woman_d5895449g.jpg

>>3214994
I'm pretty sure he's this asshole >>3219467

>>3214992
> Teach me the things loomis never could

That's your problem. You are an uninspired little cunt who seems to think that others can help you get rid of your gaping creative deficits.

That's why you love Loomis. You love getting told what to do, because you wouldn't know where to start. incapable and too lazy to make your own steps, your own improvements.

>>3219707
It was a joke. I was baiting you into posting your art and it worked. Enjoy your mediocrity lmao

>>3219717
you're the pleb here. too scared to show your own stuff. go back to mommy, she loves your work.

>>3214532
Why build the wheel from scratch? You sound like a faggot that thinks he is so cool for not using something that a lot of people use, do you also hate digital arte forma not being pure.

>>3219725
yep, digital art and fine art are two different things. there are few exceptions (David Hockney for one), most digital art up here is illustration with a linear function, either concept design, animation or whatever. fine art is an entirely different branch. if you really think there is no distinction, you have no idea what you are talking about.

>build the wheel from scratch
all technical aspects are vital and you should learn from the past (materials, how to make artwork that lasts and doesn't fall apart, making your own canvases etc.). but if you expect you can develope your own style by first learning and resorting to crutches and tricks from Loomis' measurements, you are a complete fool. go into concept art, character design …. they will love you.

>>3214413
Don't masturbate at all (unless you're seized by a bestial urge, only every few days / one day per week). Don't watch porn. Use your imagination, think of happy sexual experiences you had and use them.

Trust me anons, your perception of beauty, energy levels, appreciation of the world will go through the roof. It's one of the easiest ways to improve your life and your enjoyment of art.

Quit the porn. Not even memeing, it's as addictive as heroin and has serious damaging effects on your artistic ability. Don't believe me that you're addicted? Try not watching porn for 3 weeks, write it down. Then you'll see if you control it or it controls you.

>>3212312
>STOB WADCHING BORN

>>3220159
>think of happy sexual experiences you had and use them.

>>3220159
>think of happy sexual experiences you had and use them.

>>3220159
>think of happy sexual experiences you had and use them.
where do you think you are?

>>3215064
see the reason people here love loomis and formulaic construction methods is because of stuff like
>>3220178
>>3220180
>>3220248
they have no lives or people around to sketch so they are stuck having to invent, but not from within because that's too has rotten. and eventually dawns this simple conclusion:
>even if i master drawing i lack the knowledge to express anything because i have nothing.
followed desperately by:
>maybe art isn't about expression or ideas. it's only about how good you are. yeah, all that matters is technical skill.

and then another illustrator is born. no ideas, only copied techniques and cloned impersonal subject matter. art, subjectivity, taste. those are irrelevant--if not outright Wrong and the people who believe otherwise need to be educated on the single true set of fundamentals because they are just beginners.

>>3220159
>porn is heroin
Jesus Christ, you nofappers are retarded

>>3220567
What is a non formulaic construction that allows you to invent from within then?

You can have style, ideas, expression and sujectivity while still working inside the framework ot tools provided by fundamentals like perspective, anatomy, color theory, etc.
How does the amount of options you have at your disposal turn you into an tasteless illustrator, only capable of performing cloned impersonal subject matter?
Are you taking into consideration that when learning, many of the pieces an artist produces are going to be studies, not to convey anything, but to gain understanding. These are by definition "soulless" and don't get in the way of "making real artwork", they make it easier.

>>3220580
>What is a non formulaic construction that allows you to invent from within then?
imagination. creativity. combined with knowing how to use your eyes.

>You can have style, ideas, expression and sujectivity while still working inside the framework
this is like arguing how inmates in prison have plenty of creative outlets in their lives. it denies the entire foundation of the problem and skips immediately to apologist reasoning.

>How does the amount of options you have at your disposal
you are misrepresenting the reality of the situation. these options come with costs. there are always tradeoffs. everything you learn shapes your creative direction. among other things like simply wasting your time memorizing concepts out of context in a sterile environment. you will learn nothing about art or life. just how to create bastard clones of things by better men.

>Are you taking into consideration
>studies,
>not to convey anything, but to gain understanding.
every piece is a study. if it isn't you aren't making art, you're following a formula. and plenty of 'study' pieces by real artists are treated and sold as 'actual' artwork if and when the work found to be desirable.

anyway, i doubt much of this is going to get through to someone with an illustrator mindset. not to be intentionally vindictive but i just find your type tends to struggle coming to terms with most things from the fine art world.

>Draw things other than faces.

>Just draw more.

>Art college is a waste of time and money... don't do it.

Why are you still replying to him? He's just baiting. His thread was already deleted.

>>3220567
Comparative measurement and sight-size are both "formulas" too; jeez haven't you embarrassed yourself enough for one day?

>claims to never having read any books while simultaneously condemning their content
>talks shit about illustration while claiming to have been an illustrator himself
>admits to unironically liking art by George Condo and assuredly worships other "too deep for you" derivative hacks who're still stuck up Picasso and Duchamp's figurative rectums 100 years after they were relevant
>has drawn for over a decade and his work looks like the "before and after" pictures from Betty Edward's two week class

...and this was probably the icing on the cake:

>mocks people for making self-deprecating virgin jokes online while posting an anime reaction image

>>3220599

>>3220601
>implying I haven't had a huge smile on my face this entire time

GG (no re)

>>3220567
I totally agree with your stance. I was the one criticizing Loomis in the other thread. It's pretty natural that you get jumped if you dare question this kind of "Drawing for Dummies" approach.
The majority of illustrationfags here has learned or wants to learn by the books, not from real life models and making ones own experiences (that is too much effort).
They would rather comfort each other by relying wholly on these books and how good it feels to recommend them to each other, instead of actually building their own skills, intuition, choices, way of stylizing things …

But what do they do? They copy the style from others. The most cliched styles being: The typical shiny, red nose that looks so cute, the Schiele fingers that are held apart unnaturally, the redundant, kitsch color pallets and so on.

Once they have adopted a certain set of clichés they can resort to easily, they think they have arrived at a special or professional level and their artworks have somehow become unique.

>>3220688
cont.

While every experienced person, may it be in philosophy, science or any other field, will gladly accept you to be sceptical and question established structures, /ic/fags will jump you for questioning whether it is smart for a complete beginner to dive right into the teachings of Loomis, Blaise, Huston and all the others without making your own first steps.

The methods using schematics and construction in this meticulous fashion is a very young concept. It just won't get into their heads that if you are fixated on this construction approach, much like an athlete who trains a certain way over and over again, it is very hard to shake off and work freely ever again.

This is why you should be very careful when you think about resorting to predigested teachings that tell you how to draw "the right way" in the authors respective judgement.

For anyone who wants to be a free artist and aims to develope his own vocabulary and his very own way of finding solutions to portrait something, this is pure poison.

But the reason why this won't reach Loomis-poisoned fags is that they are already kneedeep into his shit and they keep saying "why invent the wheel from scratch?" - well, that's the whole point of art! Why copy someone else's ideas???

>>3220580
>not to convey anything, but to gain understanding. These are by definition "soulless"
I'm not the anon >>3220567
but the one who started to "shit on your lord Loomis".
No artwork is ever "soulless", I would argue. Even a very prosaic, technical sketch of a still life will be exactly that: it is sterile and straightforward. if it's done well, it will still do something with you.

Georgio Morandi has almost exclusively concentrated on painting still lifes of jars in his studio. His works are by no means "soulless" and have a very strong, inherent vibration.
He worked on this subject with an obsession that you will find in a lot of great artists of the past century.

There are hundreds of ways to employ drawing. You can design a car, sketch and work in fashion, draw plots in architecture, become a cartoon artist, an art therapist or an free artist. There are huge gaps between all of these jobs. And there is a huge gab between a free artist that aims to produce original work and an illustration artist, who merely likes to draw and wants to work for commissions. The latter may have no aspiration to produce original work, yet, out of pride, will confuse himself for a fine artist. This is what's happening on /ic/ a lot.

>>3220593
this anon >>3220587

is not me from your screenshot. I'm glad to took a screencap, bc the discussion at least did something with you, if only make you angry, hopefully get you to question if Loomis is ALWAYS the right choice. He isn't.

>>3220599
>claiming to have been an illustrator himself
that is me. A lot of great artists have made money as illustrators early in their career -- Michael Borremans, drew comics and played in a band. Or even when they already became established artists -- Andro Wekua, has illustrated a book by Sibylle Berg a few years ago. There is no contradiction in being a great fine artist and doing illustration, you will find numerous examples in art history.

>calling George Condo a cheap derivate of Picasso or whatever
goddamnit, you are daft. You should read up on contemporary art and art history. Your basic knowledge is confusing you.

>has drawn for over a decade
and that boring sketch was in my first years at uni ages ago. you have failed to show any of your works. scared to do so? are you one of the bland, faceless illustrators out there who feel triggered by this discussion?

>"Is there a better method to learning dynamic poses and perspective poses? Before ya'll start screeching about the sticky and all that, I didnt see anything in there that really helped. For me, nothing is really clicking inside my brain, and I am hoping some of you out there may have some reference pictures or construction pictures that can help shed some light on the subject. "

it's folks like this that mainly come to /ic/.
they want to improve the easy way, "doing it like they do" with no other aspiration whatsoever. completely uninspired.

>>3220707
>and that boring sketch was in my first years at uni ages ago

>>3212312
"Don't worry about learning anything other than how to stay motivated."

>>3219430
If you knew your Loomis, your head wouldnt look so shitty.

No wonder you were too scared to post

>>3220938
>so shitty
Lame criticism that hits nowhere.
I'd like you to show your work. one guy did and it was a fucking teenage manga kid with your usual depressed sketches and a kitschy happy girl with Schiele fingers.

>>3220938
>No wonder you were too scared to post
says the one not posting any his own works. lmao

>>3219430
But anon that drawing is fucking bad.
You have little self awareness do you?

>>3221577
If it is bad, you won't have any trouble pointing out specifically why it is bad. Or are you just talking out of your ass?

>>3221584
Post the movie screenshot and I'll tell you why it's bad. You already brushed off the actual critique you'd received earlier but without seeing the reference image there's really now way to know if the problems with the image are ones of your own perception or represent slight imperfections of the child.

>>3221589
>but without seeing the reference image
You seriously admit to being so fucking lame that you can't judge a drawing without the reference.

Go ahead, tell me what the drawing lacks. The only base of judgement is the drawing itself. You don't have a reference for your shit-ass character design crap to judge it by.

>>3221593
The ears are projecting out as if being seen from the profile view. Structurally his eyes appear to be facing straight ahead in spite of a suggested downward tilt of the head created by the placement of the ear and its relation to the nose.The nose also appears straight in the same way. The cupid's bow of his lip is huge, wide and flat like a monkey despite his neutral expression. The iris of his eye on our right appears to be overlapping that eye's bottom lid, giving him the appearance of his eyes looking in two different directions.

Post the reference, please

>>3221607
Also I apologize for saying it's "bad". Critique shouldn't be done with the intent to disparage the artist, but to help foster improvement, naturally. You're not so bad, but of course people are going to be harsh with you when you angry post in an authoritative manner.

How many more threads will anon take over with one drawing?

I've never seen someone confuse Loomis the teacher of the human figure for Loomis the "Schiele fingers" learning crutch. It's a whole new level of misunderstanding that is either extremely ignorant, or just silly trolling.

Old masters used plenty of construction, knew their anatomy and proportion and whored viewfinders like no tomorrow. The only thing Loomis did was write a straightforward book in English about it rather than you having to read Da Vinci's treatise on painting with weird translation quirks or old French drawing manuals from the 17th century that haven't even been translated to English.

Stop this nonsense anon. No rules, just tools.

>>3219430
Your construction of the ears (they're angled like satellite dishes) and the lower eyelids are poor. I recommend a little known author called Loomis.

>>3221607
>his eyes appear to be facing straight ahead in spite of a suggested downward tilt of the head created by the placement of the ear and its relation to the nose.
That can be due to shyness / being attentive or told off / listening what he is told.

The ears may lack shading, but his ears are jutting (pointig outwards) as they are. I will need to go back and see the original screenshot.

>giving him the appearance of his eyes looking in two different directions.
I would say they are shifted. They do point in the same direction, but his left eye is a tard bit tilted altogether and I'm not happy with his lower right eyelid.

>>3221630
>Also I apologize for saying it's "bad". Critique shouldn't be done with the intent to disparage the artist
Good for you to realize that.

Screenshot: Not the exact moment, that scene is long.

>>3221658
>How many more threads will anon take over with one drawing?
cry me a river

>confuse Loomis the teacher of the human figure for Loomis the "Schiele fingers" learning crutch
I never said that Loomis teaches to draw tumblr Schiele fingers, you absolute shitforbrains. Show me where I said this has anything to do with Loomis. I stated that the Schiele fingers are a chliché, found in a lot of mediocre, tutorial-addicted hobby illustrators.

>>3222528
Don't you think you've made his eyes bigger than they really are?

>>3220599
>Comparative measurement and sight-size are both "formulas" too

literally just autistic leftbrain speak for drawing from observation.

I was doing this loong before i knew it had a name

>>3219650
>>3219430
>>3219427
HOLY KEK. Hey man, I respect the advice you gave about just drawing from life and getting your own real understanding, that's all good. Thought most of your other opinions were a tad bit close-minded.

But holy shit those drawings man. Someone in this thread pretty much summed up how you have your head up your ass, don't know which one but it's a response to you. Come on man, lighten the FUCK up.

>>3222606

not me >>3219650

>close-minded
talk about close-mindedness in this board .... damn, where should I begin?

>>3222606
talking shit about other peoples works? show your own.

>>3222619
I don't think your bad at all. It's just funny to me that you went on and on about how people who learn from books are shit and you also go on this high-brow, I-look-down-at-you-from-my-ivory-tower-you-foolish-concept-artists-and-illustrators talk and your drawings really doesn't seem any different from some people I know who do concept art and illustration. And also, worse than the high-tier concept artists that dominate the industry.

>>3222627
*you're
*My sentence in general is typed terribly.

I understand that relying on what you read in some art book without gaining a proper understanding is a crutch. I understand copying some schematic is really not the way to go about drawing.


But I don't see how you can't just use something like a Vilppu Drawing Manual as a pointer, while also just drawing from life and making your own observations. I've seen books as just a supplement.