/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3339000
there is no other book where almost all aspects of drawing are crammed in such a coherent undertandable fashion.

Ive only started reading Loomis a couple of weeks ago. It has given me a better grasp on approaching drawing and I've felt like I've improved since reading his books. However reading his books has made me want to do more studies rather than doodling until I draw something I want to expand on.

>>3339000
start with the proko videos

>>3339000
It's a meme, nobody here actually learned from him. Loomis is outdated, boring and his English is just not worth the effort.

>>3339000
Steve huston

>>3339002
>coherent

Not saying that Loomis is useless or anything, just that there are WAY better resources right now who go indepth on various arguments. Loomis is okay for beginners, he gives you some small advice but eventually you have to move on. It's like keys to drawing, good book for beginners but you just don't constantly spam it acting like it contains all the answers.

>>3339000
Why begginers can't understand the ONLY thing you need to learn from loomis is construction and respect of proportions. And you don't even need to learn how to master it with him just to learn the basic concepts and fundamentals

>>3339118
This actually (attaching pic for fun)

I like Loomis' mannequins but that's about all I like from his books. I took Loomis too seriously trying to improve last week and focused more on getting 8 head proportion over gesture for two days to the point I lost it and I still sucked shit afterwards. I'm dumb I guess

How to Draw / Kushart / Hampton / Goldfinger anatomy / Beverely Hale's units are the only things I consider really when drawing. I always liked technical shit I guess.

I wish Looms was a magic pill like people said he was however, it's just not like that though

>>3339366
>I've drawn for two days Loomis sucks

oh boy are you in for a rude awakening when you actually try and use the other books you mentioned

Loomis is more useful as a collection of handy tips than as an end-all be-all compendium of art education.

If you're drawing something and you can't figure out why it looks like shit Loomis can help you. But even Loomis advises you to seek out more in-depth instruction for specialized fields, recommending Bridgman for anatomy and Norling for perspective.

Think of Loomis as a really well researched compilation of tutorial infographics.

I've never understood and at this rate I'll never understand why /ic/ keeps bashing Loomis.

There isn't a teacher out there who can teach 1) everyone, 2) everything they need to know.

>>3339000
i think loomis is good but i prefer scott robertson to perspective and render rather than those stupid books from perspective made easy

>>3339000
Of course loomis is not necesary. I personally prefer the Vilppu Drawing Manual for figure drawing.

>>3339369
I said he wasnt the best for everything let me live
He just isnt beginner friendly like people say

I think everyone really hates the blooks from the first few pages of FWAP and drops it before it gets good. It's literally construction: the book though and the other books are harder.

>>3339507
Here's a thought. Why not just read up on as much of the subject of drawing and construction as you can? Why can't you read Loomis and other books along with it?

>duuuuh looomis sux xDDD duuuh i can only read one book at a time :'( duuuh

>>3339516
Why are you crabbing this guy so hard?
Reading two books at the same time hurts your learning of the concepts from both books, even if they are similar concepts.

>>3339527
>duuuuh i cant read two books duuuh my comprennsion too small duuuuh

I'm not surprised you think it's crabbing with brainlet powers of retention like that. You can't make this shit up lol.

>>3339531
That's not the point, I'm saying that focusing on one book makes the information easier to digest and apply than two books. Obviously you'are comprehension is lacking.

>>3339541
Just let him go

>>3339543
No you.

>>3339541
Yeah that's usually the case when you're retarded. You have to take information in bite sized pieces.

>duuuuh mghuh eazier to digest duuuuh ur compreension lacking xDDD

>>3339544
What is your problem exactly, you didn't even read my post correctly, I've been drawing for 2 months and it took until now for Loomis to hit me correctly. Nothing in that book I didn't get except for the mannequins and proportion. Last week I grinded obsessively the proportions trying to get it exactly like Loomis and for a whole day and a half I wasted time I could have done studies on value or something, so I was upset. I've now simplified his method of proportion and mixed with Beverely Hale's units and can accurately and proportionately build a figure with a mix of those methods and only splitting a box into 4 parts instead of 8 for heads.

I got no shame in admitting all of this. I've read Hampton, Robertson, and Goldfinger. I'm was just saying I don't like him based on the fact on how long it takes for it to sink in.

So no, I didn't just read Loomis for two days and threw him out. I studied him 2 months ago when I started but just didn't really go in detail of it. Let me live you bully

>>3339000
Loomis is good. Study him for a week and then move the fuck on to the next one. Don't fucking just mindlessly grind out shit. Study, move on, then go back when you have more knowledge to understand the concepts even better. Why do we need to discuss this? His drawings look nice, he must be doing something right. Take what you want from him, just don't obsess over what he's telling you.

>>3339000
Loomis works, you just have to accept the fact that you need to do around 200 Loomis construction heads before you start to get it right. It's not like you can read those books and instantly be able to do it, but yeah I know,
>muh instant gratification

>>3339036
What exactly makes Loomis "outdated"?
What´s wrong with his English?
I find his explanations quite concise.

Usually when people shit on Loomis they're either people like OP who took one glance at the book and didn't bother or idiots who just brainlessly copied his bloke faces for two days and then got monumentally butthurt that they can't draw perfect portraits.
Loomis is recommended so much because he explains construction in a pretty easily accessible way, in a way that a literal child could understand. Regrettably many people who come to /ic/ are cognitively deficient and start screaming 'Loomis is a meme' or 'I can't believe I fell for FUCKING LOOMIS!' when they don't get instant results literally copying cartoon faces out of a book. There are better instructors, especially for intermediates, but if you've got a guy who just started and you slap shit like pic related in front of them they will probably struggle with the material.

tl;dr the point of Loomis, especially shit like fun with a pencil, is to hammer it into a beginner's brain that complex things can be made out of simple shapes.

>>3339527
>>3339541

This is actually not true even if it sounds intuitive. Interleaving learning can actually be really effective, especially if the concepts are somewhat similar but not the same. Creating connections between different things is really good for learning, and spacing out learning sessions actually helps retention because it forces you to digest things, recall them from long term memory and reflect on them in light of other material, instead of brute forcing problems though short term memory.

Massed practice, IE "focusing on one specific thing at a time over and over until you get good at it" is actually being proven more and more to be pretty ineffective at creating flexible skills. It can be good for creating 'reflexes', so maybe if you're grinding your line control mass practice may be beneficial, but if you're learning concepts that you want to apply flexibly (IE basically all the art fundamentals) interleaving is probably actually better for you. It feels intuitive that massed practice is good because you can generally get faster short term gains, but a lot of that isn't retained.

I have Figure Drawing for All Its Worth downloaded as a pdf and look at it while practicing and listening to podcasts. I haven't bothered reading all of the intro text. It's helped me out with getting the height proportions and everything, but I'd say I still struggle with translating those proportions into side views and 3/4ths. Two biggest issues are the width of the neck and differentiating the upper chest, midsection and pelvis without some wishy washy curvy bullshit.

>>3339000

Loomis books are readily available for free on the internet. I guess that's why most artist recommend him. I don't believe he's the only artist they learn from. There's so many techniques out there. Some are better than others in certain parts.

Just try everything you can get your hands on then filter out things that doesn't work and combine those techniques. Make it your own like most pros do...

Is it bad it took me 7 months down the road to understand Loomis

>>3340086
>Loomis books are readily available for free on the internet

Technically it's piracy

>>3340373
No it's not

What do you guys think of the natural way to draw?

>>3340512
Yes it is

>>3339000
Murata endorses Loomis.

>>3340674
Thanks for that

>>3340624
With your hands is usually a good start

the "closing chat" in FDFAIW is real nigga shit; Loomis was the man.

>>3340674
Where's this scan from?

>>3340729
the chad loomis

>>3340729
>tfw never finished this book so never saw this
That's some good stuff. Loomis himself used to be a crab, but then learned the fundamentals. Even states them all at the end. Funny that despite all the time passed, people are still the same trying to find secrets. At least now I know. The secret was inside of me all along!

>>3340729
Eh I accidentally double quoted part, probably better to just submit the whole pages. Page 197 through 204 should be required reading; there's a lot of good advice that holds up today.

I think he meant "expansive" collection here but regardless

>>3339000
The short answer to, "Should I study Loomis?" is yes.

If you're interested as to why his books are so important for artists to study from, it's because in terms of constructing the human form there is no one who has a better base method than him. Does that make him the end all and be all? Of course not, but it's imparable that you learn his methods as a proper grounding for everything else you will learn about anatomy.
A good metaphor is that Loomis is the foundation and other artists like Bridgeman with more lively and fluid methods of drawing are the house.
Loomis alone will result in stiff looking artwork, but if you move on without learning his methods you'll never have as solid of a knowledge in anatomy as someone who didn't skip studying him.

tldr; study loomis but also understand that he's a meme

The real issue with Loomis books is newbies thinking they have to copy his characters one to one.

Pick a simple character you like and practice the lessons in the book with them, or switch it up and draw a different one.

For the head exercises at the beginning I used a single reference photo of Kirby and drew him in a bunch of different angles and poses.


Just apply loomis to things that interest you and you will find it’s not such a painful learning experience after all

>>3340808
Anatomy is a meme, proportions, perspective and construction are all you need for a good drawing.

Knowing muscles and bones should come second to knowing these.

>>3340813
Ya of course.
I meant anatomy as a general term for proportions and construction and the like, my bad.

>>3340816
It’s all good, good luck on your future drawings

>>3340808
>George Meme-man

Stopped reading there.

He's the biggest meme in the art world, Memey.

>When multiple artists like Erik Gist and Proko admit that the best way to study "Bridgman" is to look at photographs that "kind of look like what his drawings do" instead.

How much of a meme can something be when the drawings are so unreliable in pretty much every way but people still recommend it for no readily apparent reason.

>>3340820
there's a reason why Erik Gist and Proko can't draw interesting people from imagination

>>3339000
I took him seriously back when I decided I needed better perspective fundamentals for the comics I was drawing.
I regret nothing. Today my art is so much better because of it and I'm doing great.
Loomis definitely isn't a meme.

>>3340767
Hetappi Manga Kenkyuujo R.

https://mega.nz/#F!MSgHwKQB!sCqB3lE6YndZ8uc6-2o2Zg

>>3339000
> just one glance at his bland human figures in his tutorial books disuaded me from reading his book.

Are you stupid? Why would you care if his figures looked "bland"? You're not supposed to learn some super sick and hip style from him, but the basics on which you can build whatever it is you want to do with your art. The fundamentals by default have to be bland and without a strong personal flavor, otherwise you aren't teaching the fundamentals but your personal style.

>>3341181
Whoa thanks didn't even know this got scanned. Time to dream that someone would translate it one day

>>3339427
yeah i'd rather that book too

>>3339000
loomis schmoomis
ya'll just don't draw enough, is all. draw from life, you cunts.

>>3340836
Perhaps that's the case, but they BOTH have tutorials on HOW to study from Bridgman and have undoubtably drawn from him moreso than you or I have, so what does that say about his "muh expressive drawings". I'm just summarizing their tutorials and criticizing accordingly; Gist and Prokopenko are the ones running damage control on Bridgman's behalf despite basically admitting that his material is completely lacking on its own, and that you're better off studying actual photographs from the beginning.

>>3340820
calm down there crabby

Most great art work has been produced long before mememan came along. Doubt his forebears would accept the shit scratches his students copied down.

>>3341264
Because neither of them understood his teachings.

>>3339000
Is it okay to jump right into his portraits or figure drawing books? I'm relatively a beginner but I've been drawing off and on for years. I'm reasonably well with referencing but I want to learn more in depth about portraits and figure drawing (not at the same time though). Whenever I start with a beginner's books I just get extremely bored.

The Loomis books are great reference material for understanding shadow and proportions and subtly in anatomy

>>3341800
>subtly in anatomy
for example?

Whenever I draw complex bodies I always keep figure drawing Next to
Me, loomis is a easy way to look up bodies and to learn from it.

>>3339000
Personally I like Bridgemans books better

>>3340839
begone proko