/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

Unironically Loomis. In the sense that is the right amount of proper fundamentals explained in the worst way possible. If anything it seems like the whole set of books is designed to scare off beginners away from solid fundamentals.

>>4037234
my theory is that people are genuinely too stupid to understand loomis and dont get that you have to actually sit down and study to learn. drawing should be fun!!!! why me have to memorize thing :(((((

>>4037218
Probably that book by Nicolaides

>>4037218
Honest question, if your dog reacted that way to something you offered it, would you still keep it?

>>4037344
Dogs are like children. Their faces are mimicked by their master.

my art stagnated for a long time when I believed the "my art teacher knows nothing! I'm gonna keep copying anime" meme so many popular artist weebs like to shout
do your fundies bros

>>4037218
Ryan Lang stuff is pretty worthless, what I've used at least. A bunch of sped up process and him rambling about his job instead of technique. good thing I pirated it and didn't buy it.

as for the best, since I feel like saying this, Marco bucci's free shit. Fuck proko, fuck sinix, fuck modern day James, Marco bucci is where it's at

>>4037741
I bought Langs material, I don't know about you but I learned a handful of things with him, and he explains his process enough to implement it to your own work, but maybe i'm being biased since I like the guy works a lot.
And I have to agree with Bucci, he gives a Lot of useful tips, but, his painting process videos are absolute crap, he is si freaking chaotic at painting, but his lectures are the shit.

>>4037218
To counter, the best courses I've ever watched were Scott Eaton's Anatomy course and his Head course.

>>4037218
Those instagram art tutorials are total beg traps. They don't encourage learning fundamentals to problem solve, but encourage a 'wait for a tutorials to plop in front of you and fix all your art problems' attitude. It's deppresing the amount of people who comment how a tutorial randomly appeared in their feed and helped them and not how they actively seeked it out. The tutorials also give advice without telling why/how. Those can be confusing for beginners

>>4037915
i agree with this 100 percent. also goes for those deviant art "how to draw an eye" or "how to add glitch effect" tutorials. its churning out schlocky symbol drawers left and right.

>>4037218
A comics course by Alvin Lee, by all means amazing but his instruction was on the lines of
>ok so I'm gonna draw some kickass shit here

Pyw

>>4037246
I think the type of people who would actively search out books for learning in the 1940s-1950s for art were a lot more disciplined and had fuck all sources of instruction other than their local art teacher so they read it front to back 20 times and drew out the examples 50 times.
Then on top of that the type of people who knew about Loomis were probably a step ahead of most people either intellectually or resource wise, since it would have been hard to get recommendations for actually good art books back then.
Plus they were basically trying to get a job as quick as possible to get a wife and marry before they were 23. Not to mention the atmosphere of ww2 just ending so you better get your fucking finger out and get working cause boy you don't want to know what your brother and father did in france to afford you the opportunity to play with your crayons.

So I don't think Loomis is too advanced I just think we are spoiled shits with add and no pressure to do anything with our lives so we don't.

>>4037218
A game design course at my local community college. The course description said we would be put into groups and make simple indie games and play them on xbox360 at the end. All we did was learn how to make a sprite move up and down and pick up coins.

>>4037218

>>4037234
agreed