/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4017876
Everyone learns from Loomis eventually.

>>4017879
loomis is the man

>>4017909
or woman. we don't judge in this house

Early Japanese NGMI artists who wanted to git gud without going to trade school were exposed to Jack Hamm and bridgman first because japanese translation came out in Japan before Andrew Loomis books.

>>4018010
All proper fundamental teachers are the same, fundamentally.

Hamm = Loomis = Bridgman

Hogarth is trash though.

>>4018194
pyw

I don't get why so many people have a boner for Toriyama's work. Even as a kid I thought it butt ugly and that never changed.

>>4018199
Because story > art

>>4017876
Dbz has really good anatomy.

>>4018199
Look at his early DB work, the way be drew vehicles/weapons, the expressive faces and the speed he conveyed in his fights (before it became a big fireball contest)...

>>4018010
is it possible he used loomis?

>>4018212
that's fan art and and come on he has a style. The muh style excuse does apply here

>>4018212
was vegeta balding?

Why would a Japanese dude learn drawing from a western dude?
Just cuz Loomis is most popular on here now doesn't mean this jap knew about it growing up

Someone name drop a Japanese "Loomis"

>>4018558
Ruumisu

>>4018565
Literally who?

>>4018587
アンドリュー ルーミス

>>4018605
lol

>>4017879
>Everyone learns from youtube eventually.
Fixed that for you

>>4018542
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widow's_peak

>>4018713
ngmi

>>4018731
>yeah bro, its totally normal, the chicks love it!

>>4018741
This isn't the incel board

Toriyama probably never heard about Loomis. In his book he shows how he draws characters and it does not even come close to Loomis method.

>>4019511
Which method does he use?

>>4018741
Gtfo. The only issues I've had with my widow's peak is other men giving me shit.

>>4018542
Hard to say since everyone in DBZ had gigantic foreheads, but yeah he was balding. (Compare kid Vegeta's hairline to his current one)

>>4017876
Nobody who learned to draw between 1972 and 2004 used Loomis cause his shit was out of print and nobody cared until people started sharing scans in napster because there wasn't anyone to dmca them for out of print books nobody cared about.

Your god is a handout and the people who inspired you to draw likely didn't even know he existed until we made it a meme.

>>4019721
then explain alex ross

>>4019744
He happened to go to the american academy of art of chicago and be the personal pet student of Loomis' last living colleague. When you have to come to the one teacher to happen to have met the man in person to claim Loomis remained relevant between the 70's and mid 00's you're not helping your case.

>>4019511
post pic

>>4019765

Nice using wikipedia.

You still haven't proved shit. Theres also watts atelier that has been teaching loomis method for that time.

Watts+ american acadmy of art = loomis is very relavant.

Checkmate

>>4019777
I actually know that from reading his own words in "I'd love to draw". Because apparently, unlike you, I've read Loomis and found him neglectful then turned to Vilppu and Bridgman like everyone who actually wants to learn.

Loomis is recommended because he's free. You losers made a religion of what /ic/ oldfags knew was nothing but shitposting at idiots who wouldn't read the sticky.

>>4019781
Don't try changing subjects. You have proved loomis wasn't relevant in those periods.

if anything Alex ross said in an interview loomis book's were in high demand

I take the W given that 2 important schools taught loomis on that period

> I've read Loomis and found him neglectful

NGMI

>>4019781
Take the L. Watts atelier and the american academy of art made loomis relevant on those periods.

>>4019785
>if anything Alex ross said in an interview loomis book's were in high demand
They were, in 2010.

>>4019791
citation needed

>>4019792
Titan Books picked his books for reissue in late 2010.
No matter what you faggot cultists say the only measure of demand for intellectual properties is someone paying to hold and exploit them. And that didn't happen for Loomis until this decade after 40 years of being largely ignored.

>>4019795
You are Changing the goalpost. I ask citation on loomis being irrelevant before 2010. nobody questions they were out of print

It's not like libraries and photocopying machines existed

>>4019795
>the only measure of demand for intellectual properties is someone paying to hold and exploit them.


Citation needed.

>>4018456
FDFAIW got translated to japanese in 2000, it's almost literally impossible that Toriyama learned from Loomis.

>>4019804
Then how did he learn?

>>4019800
The Loomis state never cared to DMCA napster, ares, etc. about his books being shared, they were in fact not even aware they were sought for in the late 2000's and starting to pick up in price until saveloomis.org got popular and TB sought to pick the rights to reprint them.

AAA kept teaching his method and Watts picked him up in '96. How many schools didn't? Most of America didn't and picked Hampton, Bridgeman, Bargue, Dodson, etc. instead. The russians sure as fuck didn't, Japan didn't. France, Italy, England? didn't either.

I'm not spoonfeeding you any further, it's obvious for as religiously devoted as you are to the idea of Loomis being the be all end all of artistic education you don't know shit about him, the history of his books or what the art learning landscape was before your snot nosed generation.

>>4019812
He studied at the Prefectural Industrial High School, he likely doesn't have any art education at all other than high school level technical drawing.

>>4019821
Still waiting for you to prove your point without moving the goalpost. Enjoy being a NGMI

>>4019821
You mean the same russians that have higher quality scans of loomis than us? LOl

Or bidgman who taught loomis?

Just take the L

>>4019833
>Or bidgman who improved loomis?
fixed.