/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

I dont understand people who like bridgman. All the humans he draws look all jagged and seem like some sort of rock golems instead of real human.

>>4327927
Because they re drawn with a stick on a wall

>>4327885
Bammes and Struttura Uomo

bridgeman draws humans like variations of quasimodo

>>4327885
Zarins + some 3D reference like Anatomy Atlas are pretty good.

>>4327927
And Loomis’ look like photocopies. Bridgman is better

>>4327972
Loomis doesn’t look like a photocopy tho

>>4327885
If you’re serious no one book or system will satisfy you.
Its really best to learn from video or ultimately in person first. Then the books make more sense and you start to understand their thinking better because you are not trying to decipher (or get your hand to reproduce) the mere shapes on the page.
Bridgman is cool, not because of how his drawings look, but because of how he systematized a visual language for muscle and joint “locking” and “passing” (overlap), as well as the straights and curves, “pinch and stretch”, the “robo bean” approach to the torso and so on. Not all of that is clear from looking at or even reading his books. The books are the equivalent of “class notes”.
Loomis was the first and to this day one of the most complete treatment of using basic shapes like cylinders to create mannequins you can work with, to some degree, from imagination.

Anyway with videos you get something closer to finding a teacher whose presentation gets through to you. Personally, I’ve seen them all and right now, I think Proko is really getting it right in terms of imparting lots of knowledge, a useable method, and keeping it light and slightly silly. After him you can work through any and every book you can find.
But NMA is good. Ron Lemen is good. All the well-known ones are good, really, with few exceptions.

>>4327885
If you’re serious no one book or system will satisfy you.
Its really best to learn from video or ultimately in person first. Then the books make more sense and you start to understand their thinking better because you are not trying to decipher (or get your hand to reproduce) the mere shapes on the page.
Bridgman is cool, not because of how his drawings look, but because he systematized a visual language for muscle and joint “locking” and “passing” (overlap), as well as the straights and curves, “pinch and stretch”, the “robo bean” approach to the torso and so on. This at a time when there weren’t nearly as many good drawing manuals available on the market as there are now. Not all of that is clear from looking at or even reading his books. The books are the equivalent of “class notes”.
Loomis was one of the first to publish for the popular market - and to this day one of the most complete treatments of - using basic shapes like cylinders to create mannequins you can work with, to some degree, from imagination.

Anyway with videos you get something closer to finding a teacher whose presentation gets through to you. Personally, I’ve seen them all and right now, I think Proko is really getting it right in terms of imparting lots of knowledge, a useable method, and keeping it light and slightly silly. After him you can work through any and every book you can find.
But NMA is good. Ron Lemen is good. All the well-known ones are good, really, with few exceptions.

>>4327994
Yeah. Start off with entertaining and simple instruction and then eventually throughout your education you should have seen and studied from every anatomy book or video you can get your hands on.
Take what you like and ignore what you dont.

>>4327994
is there someone that teaches bridgman in video?

>>4328048
Proko actually does a tiny bit and then theres a couple of youtubes. People often mention it in passing because not that many people really can see past and decipher the weird drawings.
Even he ultimately put students in front of a model and made them draw. There’s an Art Student’s League book that shows a lot of drawings from his students. I forget what its called. But their drawings looked typically atelier-ish, with Bargue-style rendering, but with some (not overstated) evidence of his style/influence. The knowledge he imparted was not so much about how to draw the figure but how to understand the figure while drawing.
If you REALLY want to understand Bridgman, learn anatomy - again, Proko, NMA, etc and then keep returning to his books.
No one teaches it explicitly, but it is possible to get a “mind to mind transmission” to borrow a zen term, once you a) pretty much know how to draw, and b) understand basic anatomy.
He didn't teach beginners really.

i'm gonna borrow this thread for a minute
did bridgman taught to henri de toulouse lautrec?

>>4327885
Bridge mayne is best expression of muscules

>>4328085
Possibly they both had the same teacher or lineage of teachers in France.

>>4328085
Bridgman learnt from Jean-Léon Gérôme

Op here. I am more confusef than I wad before making this thread. I am not that bad, but I have no idea where to go, I tried to hire a tutor but he was asking for like 10% of my salary for 2 hours of training, bridgman, vilppu, rey, goldfinger, loomis, so many directions, I am very confused I dont know where to go to develop further, loomis seems like a meme from 80 years ago, I am interested in classical drawing and later going into painting, but loomis is just ilustrations from like dutch butter cookie metal boxes, others are overwelming, everything is overwhelming. Proko is all over the place, florent farges is kinda intersting but its not for begginers, alphonso dunn the same,its really soul crushing. NMA its good, but moves through a lot of stuff too fast. Just draw is also a meme imo, like, i just drew pic related an learned nothing from it. Idk guys, might as well quit with such a lack of direction

>>4328661
I know what you mean 100%

>>4327982
No, they look like crap really, especially female ones.

>>4328697
>>4328697
looks like something from scooby do

>>4328697
Sticc

>>4328661
scott eaton anatomy. it's not a drawing course but it familiarizes you with all the major muscles and bone structures you need to know. after that you can learn to draw from whatever you like in any of the books. i think learning anatomy separate from drawing is helpful. anatomy is all about picking and choosing what you like from all the resources, i have quite a few books and have taken a bit from all of them but bridgman is my favorite overall. when artists learn anatomy it tends to stiffen and sterilize everything, bridgman is good because he emphasizes the spirit of poses and forms that get lost by trying to remain too "realistic" in regards to angles and measurements. as an artist you're not drawing what you see, you edit it to make it more like your vision. with anatomy, what is actually correct is often not the correct choice when making art. there are thresholds of emphasis you need to find to enhance your art without going off the rails like hogarth's bubble people. learning anatomy is a framework to help you achieve your goal, not the be-all-end-all to making better art.

>>4328697
Damn his bodies look weird. Might learn proportions and some from him, but I’ll learn how to draw the body/ figure drawing from Hampton and Villpu . Like I said before these look photocopied

>>4328910
You seem to know what you’re talking about. What approach should a beginner take in learning anatomy and drawing it? I’m thinking loomis, Hampton, some Villpu and then Bridgman

>>4328961
books in the same group should be worked on at the same time. my library split up with anatomy and figure as two different categories because they're both similar and different enough to need it. work on personal projects, don't just grind anatomy thinking you'll get anywhere. you'll be sorely mistaken when you have all this knowledge but don't know what to draw at the end of it. take your time. try to draw things on the pages several times and later on try to rotate them in your mind and draw the rotated forms from different angles to practice imagination. you don't need to read all this

>group 1 (beginner)
vilppu drawing manual chapters 1-7, then up to page 88 with the landmarks (feel free to check in on the later parts of the book but i don't find this necessary to begin with)
steve huston making every mark count
>group 2 (intermediate)
scott eaton anatomy
hampton (you should know from scott eaton anatomy what simplifications hampton makes are actually incorrect and easier to draw with how scott or steve showed you, but some of his form ideas are good. this book helps marry your anatomy knowledge to drawing/painting 3d volumes in space)
>open study
bridgman constructive anatomy, guide to drawing from life (there's a good drapery section at the end)
robert beverly hale - drawing lessons from the great masters, masterclass in figure drawing
morpho
famous artist cartoon course 09 - drapery
hogarth (be warned he likes stretching and inventing anatomy that isn't there but some things can be nice while others can be horrific)
loomis - heads and hands, figure drawing

>reference for figuring out what some bump is or how others draw it (good books but not necessarily for instructional learning)
anatomy for sculptors
richer
bammes
goldfinger
vanderpoel
strength training anatomy
peck - atlas of human anatomy
barcsay
struttura uomo
proko
nma to further enrich your knowledge, some of the videos imo aren't worth the time unless it's the analyzing masters portion

>>4327885
you feel the form real hard with bridgman but all the scans are arse

You (and everybody else trying to argue regarding Bridgman vs Loomis) don't know what the fucking point of any of their writings are, so just pick something to waste your fucking time with for a decade until you realize that the fundamental skills they both teach are the same.

>>4328697
Why would you put high heels on a nude reference picture like that? I like high heels and all but putting them on an anatomical chart is just retarded.

>>4328910
looking at this it actually shows some really solid anatomical knowledge, but a few years ago i would've thought it was "wrong" for being stylized
neat!

>>4329277
that's part of the reason loomis sucks for anatomy or beginners. his figure drawing is actually good but the plates with proportions show dumb shit like this and the ideal awful proportions of whatever adshit wanted back then. some of loomis is really dated and not useful, most of fwap which makes it bad for beginners since they don't know to filter out that stuff or put it in context.

>>4329290
schiele is one of the artist's eaton brings up in his lectures to show how you can stylize art while still knowing anatomy.

>>4329290
>but a few years ago i would've thought it was "wrong" for being stylized

this is currently the phase /ic/ has been stuck in for about 9 years

>>4329351
Yeah, it feels like this board hates anything that isnt a medical diagram.

>>4329333
Stylization is abstraction and design, that means you break bones for drama and sometimes don't draw every wrinkle in a girl's face. But it has never meant and will never mean to ignore anatomy willy nilly.

It's a fucking tragedy that so many people misunderstand it so deeply.

Real life is the best. Learning anatomy from another person’s drawing is not a way to learn trust me.

>>4329376
>that means you break bones for drama
>But it has never meant and will never mean to ignore anatomy willy nilly.
nice contradiction

>>4329431
If you think that's a contradition you have a middle school reading comprehension level and likely autism too.

You're also inherently impeded for the art of animation.

>>4327885
neither.
Hampton.

>>4329443
How do you know which bones to break? How do you know which to make longer, shorter? How do you know what direction to break them? Oh right, it's willy nilly according to your needs of stylization and composition.

>>4327885

>>4329269
>lmao its just anatomy brah

>>4329503
loomis is clearly the best of these 3

>>4327927
Anyone who doesn't like Bridgeman is a brainlet

>>4329670
False, the best is clearly Stephen

>>4329040
Blessed

>>4328661
Anatomy is hard, you little baby. Of course, it is overwhelming.
Loomis and Bridgman are starting points, the foundations are gesture and proportions, and those books are fine for that, then you approach the single muscles with more neutral anatomy books, specific references, and life drawing.
Also, you don't end up accidentally drawing like Loomis when you finish reading one of his books, you wish.

>>4329893
okay, what loomis book should I start with, fun with a pencil?

>>4329893
Also I did some bargues but they re useless without a teacher to tell you where you have to change stuff

>>4329477
Momentum and design.
You'll never get it, keep drawing boxes.

>>4329503
Loomis' art is so plastic and derivative. The others aren't anything out of this world but they don't immediately stink of rip off.

>>4329975
>derivative
nigga hes the OG advertisment art guy

>>4329910
I think I ll just quit. There are no ateliers or courses or teacher in my city besides a post modernist art school. There s no way I can learn anything from these books (wich I can barerly even choose). The only good book ive read is keys to drawing but even if that's the only book who actually gave instructions, the level was just too crude, but perfect for begginers, the advanced books are just compilations of drawings.

>>4329978
Toulouse-Lautrec will come back from hell just to spit on you.

>>4329979
>I think I ll just quit.
Please do. We don't need more high maintenance losers demanding magic and offering nothing in return.

It's been said before in other threads: "Intermediates don't exist." And I get what they mean. It's easy to lead /beg/s to just read the books on fundamentals, and it's still constructive to criticize experts because expertise doesn't mean perfection and a pair of fresh eyes can catch what their didn't.

But intermediates? Fuck them, they already know the theory, all they need is to practice it but they keep whining that art is too hard and everyone's concealing secret info from them, or that they need motivation/tutoring, or worse they go on looking for excuses like ligamemes, iq, talent, etc. instead of fucking drawing.

Draw or quit, you already got all the help you're gonna get and the right path has been pointed for you. I you don't wanna take it don't, but stop wasting everyone's time.

>>4329991
>Draw or quit, you already got all the help you're gonna get and the right path has been pointed for you. I you don't wanna take it don't, but stop wasting everyone's time

I guess you re right

>>4329989
tolouse lautrec couldnt reach my balls

>>4329910
Draw that arm again from imagination.

Then do it backwards, draw something from imagination using whatever construction method you have at hand (they are all equally useful, yes, even Christopher Hart, all they do is teach you to put something the page so you stop being afraid of not knowing what to draw and let your brain stumble upon the forms you wish to depict), then seek reference of what you drew in the angle and pose you intended to draw it and copy it like you copied the plaques.

Then do that again and again for years because you already know everything people can teach you and all that's left between where you are and where you want to be is experience.

If you're not willing to do this, art isn't for you. And no, that isn't us being cunts who want to dissuade "the competition" from "making it". That's you thinking you should be as good as Mozart just because you learned to read music, or Tom Brady just because you learned the rules of football. Learning the theory is only the minimum effort you need to put to be good at art, the rest is all practice.

>>4330021
Very good and motivational advice, thank you!

I put effort into a couple of posts in this thread only to find OP reply with “wah! Here are reasons why I can’t! I should quit!”.

Fuck the OP.
I now see why people are blackpilled about ic and only shitpost.

>>4327927
He's an art teacher that intentionally draws anatomy in hyperbole to better show the forms that normally are too subtle for novice artists to identify.

>>4327927
because it looks cool, hes the only art teacher that I would actually want to draw like in some ways

>>4329277
Because that book is so old it's from a time where people could hardly conceive of the idea of a woman not in heals. Unironically this is the result of the patriarchy. There are a lot of dated things in that book. Still a good starting point though.

>>4329910
i thought the bargue course was meant for self teaching w/o a teacher no?

>>4330426
>i thought the bargue course was meant for self teaching w/o a teacher no?
No, its for ateliers, where teachers can show you slight deviations you cant see for yourself, ofc my drawing is too shit and I can see the mistakes without a teacher but you get it

>>4329503
bridgman is a foot nigga so im following him

>>4330122
>I now see why people are blackpilled about ic and only shitpost.
That's not the only reason, but I'm sure you'll find out soon enough(if you wouldn't have left already by then)

>>4330397
Oh do fuck off loser.

>>4330397
Tits or gtfo.

Künstler>everyone else

>>4327927
Listen here nigger, I'm about to blow your mind.

You don't need to draw exactly like the teacher does, he's exaggerating the forms so that your noob ass can notice them. You can dial that shit down on your own art at will.

>>4327885
Loomis for accuracy, Bridgman for expression.

>>4331726
You can look at medical charts for better accuracy, loomis adds nothing

>>4332269
>>4331726

Both wrong.

For the last fucking time, Bridgman wasnt showing how to draw, he was showing how to understand.
His drawings are instructional af - especially for when his books came out, but aesthetically they are mannered and grotesque, reflective of the drunken and otherwise unemployable state he was in.
His drawings show how muscles, tendons and joints fit together and how they worked. He introduced an analogy of mechanics as a way to approach the figure and to let function guide form.
People who emulate his drawing style are going down a wrong path.
Period.

Loomis, as an illustrator was also teaching a method, not an aesthetic. He could draw and pint beautifully but his books taught a way to approach figures, objects and scenes in ways that were simplified and reproducible, and was particularly effective for working up illustration ideas from imagination before paying for a model. In his day, illustration and commercial art was a viable career option and his books were intended to give such aspirants a leg up.

Both Bridgman and Loomis - and Reilly for that matter, as well as Hamm and whoever else, were basically trying to give methods of simplification and approach not styles to be emulated.

>>4328661
>might as well quit

You might want to first figure out what your motivations are and whether or not you have the discipline to actually achieve your goals and most importantly whether you actually enjoy creating art at all. It's not always fun fun fun but you need to balance your main pursuit of classical drawing with a different aspect of art that you can do purely for the enjoyment of it.
Speaking from experience I was getting a bit burned out sculpting humans so I decided to do some quick stylised animal sculpts and it was a nice reset for me.
But seriously ask yourself whether you find any aspect of creating art enjoyable and if the answer is no then go find something you do enjoy!

>>4331726
Loomis is not accurate, his shit is stylized as fuck to look like the snobby shitheads ad agencies wanted everyone to be in the 20's and 30's.

>>4332700
The did have fat ugly shrill bitter blue haired feminists and self hating faggots back then. It was a fucking golden age. Our birthright. And (((they))) took it away from us by preying on our patience and kindness. Now the world has gone to shit - completely degenerate and it’s probably too late.

>>4332700
Sorry. They didn’t have fat ugly shrill bitter blue haired feminists and self hating faggots back then. It was a fucking golden age. Our birthright. And (((they))) took it away from us by preying on our patience and kindness. Now the world has gone to shit - completely degenerate and it’s probably too late.

>>4332757
we are talking about anatomy books here

>>4332764
>the snobby shitheads ad agencies wanted everyone to be in the 20's and 30's
My point remains.

>>4332764
The one sniffing her wine gets it.

>>4332757
take your meds

>>4329503
Soulless
Sole
Soul

>>4332832
Learn to draw, get some taste and don’t be a degenerate.

>>4332838
Loomis is peak America faggot. Fake jap cartoon fatty porn is whats soulless.

>>4332848
>Loomis is peak America faggot.
Yeah, his pieces were so unappealing and generic that that he went out of print for decades until someone uploaded his PDFs for free

>>4332878
Just because peak America got subverted and forgotten doesnt make it bad.

Get your head straight man.
You are the cancer.

>>4332878
Also, when they were rediscovered, they were nearly universally appreciated and recommended by people who know what they’re doing. They are possibly THE most widely used art instruction books around. For a fucking reason.

When I was little, I had a WW2 artist as an art teacher. He was fucking amazing. He introduced me to Loomis’ illustration book. And told me not to turn my nose up at Rockwell. This was the 80’s. So
While the (((art world))) was pushing abstraction and deviant bullshit, the good men who were still around sharing their knowledge knew the value of the tradition they inherited.
I remember kids laughing at him. I tried to read the book, but was still a bit young.
When I grew up I discovered that virtually every significant art teacher around referenced loomis to one degree or another.
You fuckers dont deserve what was supposed to be yours.
You will get the world you deserve.

>>4332757
His women look like dolled up twinks.

>>4332848
>Loomis is peak America
You fucking cultis not only insult Lautrec and the whole parisian ad art cradle but now spit on Rockwell, Sundblom and Leyendecker too.

Loomis truly is a mental illness.

>>4333481
Erm, read my other post idiot.
>>4332914

>>4327885
Bridgman's line of teachers goes back to the old masters of the Renaissance.
Loomis did advertising.

>>4327885
Bridgman is the only non dyel arm in that pic

Bridgman was Loomis’ teacher. Same lineage.

>>4328697
>ideal female figure
>has hank hill ass

>>4327885
Richer

>>4333874
I don't want to join your church, stop asking.

>I want to learn kind of classical drawing, not the comic book look.

OP, you're too uneducated and naive to know what you're saying and you sound like a dumbass.
What you need to learn are drawing fucking fundamentals and at your obviously lack of skill, it doesn't fucking matter which method you attempt for a week and then give up on before fucking around artistically for a few years.

>>4335385
>OP, you're too uneducated and naive to know what you're saying and you sound like a dumbass. What you need to learn are drawing fucking fundamentals and at your obviously lack of skill, it doesn't fucking matter which method you attempt for a week and then give up on before fucking around artistically for a few years.

I may be uneducated, but the things you want to study matter, like the people in these thread said, Bridgman could trace his art lineage to the old masters in france and it shows, especially in his paintings.

>>4328704
>>4328925
>>4329277
>>4334082
>piling on an unrendered instructional diagram demonstrating proportion

man you sorry sacks really go out of your way to hate things huh. sit down, be humble. and not everybody like a big baboon ass on their women by the way

>>4335406
Generic, boring
No surprise that no one remembers his finished pieces.

>>4335445
i might have to go to the doctor for eyestrain after rolling them that far back in my head. fucking muppet grow up

>>4335446
Loomis cultist, this paining literally looks like a 50's pin up calendar, soulless and forgettable

>>4335449
IT IS A 50s PINUP YOU FUCKING MORON

>>4335449
kek

>>4335449
Every skill he used to produce that would be used to produce a piece "with soul". You do already have soul, don't you? Because it cannot be taught.

>>4335452
Yeah, every single painting he did looks like this.

>>4335462
AND? what's your goalpost-moving point asshole?
>i only like japanese cartoon girls
i dont remember asking brainlet

loomis is pure stiff shit
vilppu is better

>>4327927
thats the point retard

>>4335399
ohno
it's retarded

>>4330432
if you cant measure landmarks yourself with a thread youre ngmi. youre supposed to do these drawings sight sized at a distance with a length of thread not just jerk off all over it like any other reference youre completely missing the point.

>>4332845
>im gay

>>4327885
Bridgman shows you how the forms emerge through the skin in practice
The peck guy looks like proper realistic anatomy which is also important
Loomis shows you how to draw outdated symbols in and outdated style

>>4335907
Sorry to hear that?

>>4335937
The peck book actually has a lot of drawings that use a Bridgmanish style.

>>4335460
That's the point you stupid nigger. Sundblom, Elvgren and Petty do what Loomis did but a million times better. Rockwell and Leyendecker exponentially more so.

Loomis will not lead you anywhere but safe, boring, outdated editorial art that even illustrators before his time had already moved past. Peck goes back to realistic anatomy without marketing flairs while Bridgman WHO LOOMIS LEARNED FROM, teaches the body in an exaggerated manner to make it extremely obvious where each piece connects to each other because he expects the alumni to have enough brainpower and autonomy to be able to dial it back, or even exaggerate it further if they so desire.

The only think Loomis offers than others don't is that he's free because he was utterly unsuccessful in remaining relevant and went out of print.

>>4336492
Oh fuck off.
Seriously. “Muh out of print”.
Enough.

>>4336538
Keep drawing your stupid stiff ass shit but stop trying to fool others into your aimless path to misery.

>>4336616

>>4327927
He's right you know.

>>4328697
>/ic/ thinks this is peak drawing
No wonder everyone here's shit.

>>4338668
pyw

>>4327885
are you autistic?
>loomis

do you want to suffer?
>bridgman

there. go nuts

>>4327885
Jim Lee studied Bridgman for his art, so you know what to study if you don't want your art to look like comics

what about 3d anatomy models on sketchfab?

>>4334090
based richer poster

>>4341491
The truth is that all people are different, there's no "perfect" anatomy model. You only need to know the general placement and shape of these. I think looking at a shitton of real life references helps, alongside a muscle reference in case it gets confusing. Loomis, Bridgman, Peck, and whatever book or reference you can think of is correct as long as they get the general musculature correct.

>>4341503
I think the most correctest and basedest approach is to become Loomis, Bridgman for yourself and by looking at real body (irl, 3d models, medical drawings) and develop your own simplified forms

it's what I'm trying to do at least it's hard

>>4338982
>do you want to suffer?
Bridgman it is then

>>4341503
>looking at real life references help
Not really, actually drawing the reference with accurate placement and proportions of the model helps. You’ll retain atleast 500% more information when drawing from reference.

>>4341564
>being this pedantic
yes, looking, drawing, whatever.

>>4341570
Just looking and actually drawing are completely different

>>4341564
That's what he meant you sperg.

>>4341487
is your retardation diagnosed and they still let you on to a computer unsupervised or is being a dumbass just a hobby for you

Rooooling!

Loomis poomis foomis

no

>>4342290
Thats discrimination

>>4341602
How?

>>4347621
Drawing requires much more thought than looking, which will reveal much more detail and nuances than just looking. Doing master studies makes this much more clearer. Besides If you’re just gonna stare at a picture then you might as well draw it anyways.

>>4347694
I disagree.

>>4349511
with? pretty reasonable response

>>4327885
I think both are shit, but at least the Loomis one looks like an actual arm.

Vilppu is honestly the best out there if you don't mind putting in the work.

>>4351203
isn't vilppu mostly for gesture though?

>>4351359
isn't your mouth mostly for sucking cock?
what compels someone to say something this stupid

>>4330553
Where is the lie?

>>4328697
>>4335406
>he doesn't like ass

Are you a fag?

>>4352765
Someone photoshop a loomis book on her lol

>>4351359
Lolol

>>4352765
thats disgusting, go back where you came from incel

>>4352785
Ok virgin

>>4335406
Linebacker shoulders.

>>4352765
ass is a showcase of both good fat storage genetics and strenght for it to be shapely and perky, its literally a sign of health

>>4330122
>writing posts for a single person
Cute, sweetie, but that's not how it works. Here I am, more than a week later, reading and benefiting from the advice on the thread.

>>4352765
She looks like she has down

>>4353140
Faggit detected

>>4327885
Bridgman for the blockouts, Loomis for the specific details

>>4327931
while he was drunk

>>4327931
pic related.

>>4327885
Start with Loomis, go through Bridgman first (copy what you see), study Peck's exhaustive information, then go through Bridgman again but constructing with your own forms.

>>4353502
Shit, I've been studying his stuff way too small.
No wonder I still suck at drawing.

>>4353502
looks like a Michelangelo study

>>4353840
Michelangelo was learning from bootleg vilppu tapes

>>4327885
that Peck guy looks good, why doesnt anyone talk about his method?

>>4353895
Why should he?

>>4353418
I feel like simplfing the human form into boxes really helps on the pespective

>>4335946
(not person you replied to)

I cant find relevant results for "the peck book" , what is the books actual name

can you show me a picutre of a peck book construction

>>4329333
That looks so weird.

Why are you guys debating who is better?
You should learn from all three, you fucking plebs.

>>4351420
What compels someone to be this high strung and volatile? It was a simple question don't bust a blood vessel

>>4353502
damn

>>4329375
>>4329351
it’s because they’re told loomis etc are the only way to get appealing anatomy. then they think everything has to share characteristics with these artists drawings. then they realise passionate soulful art usually follows its own rules. then they get scared and go back to what they’re comfortable with, and proceed to seethe.

>>4353502
Holy shit, he drew that huge? I don't have paper that big though. No wonder I make no gains.

>>4330122
But I've read your posts, and I copy pasted them into a notepad to save them.
So please don't think that your effort is going unnoticed or unused.

>>4329670
Actually true. He made a career from his works, rather than just some books. Anyone than can only make it teaching is not what you want. They failed to break the big time for a reason.

>>4330397
More like all the women he expected students to draw would be for illustration purposes, therefore idealised & wearing heels. Not dumpy trolls from tumblr.

>>4356168
It's called "Atlas of Human Anatomy for the Artist" by Stephen Rogers Peck. You can find it in the artbook thread but I think it's way better to own a physical copy that I can just open up and flip to the right page. It's not like Bridgman's or Loomis where the entire book is teaching you methods to draw it, it's very detailed medical diagrams of all the muscles and then a page or two of Peck simplifying it. I learn better on my own so it was a perfect book for me, but it's mostly male anatomy.

>>4353502
I.. I . I'M GONNA COOOOM!

None, Bargue course (read about how it's supposed to be done each plate is supposed to take a long ass time), and the sight size method. Taking the time to analyze the subject is key in classical drawing.

Both suck.

>>4329910
How do I achieve these gains?

>>4361569
pyw.

>>4359601
>comparing sight size photocopy machining to constructive drawing

fucking FULL retard

>>4361576
Draw until your hands give up

>>4329975
This is true.

>>4327885
all you need is villpu

>>4359601
Yes, but you're not supposed to do each plate. There are incredibly diminishing returns so you should only do like 2-3 full drawings of increasing difficulty.

>>4363548
>Yes, but you're not supposed to do each plate.
You're not? Which plates should I do in what order?

>>4363898
any of them because if you're that fucking braindead that you think sight size copying has any fucking bearing on constructive drawing you deserve to waste your fucking time

>>4363964
That's how Bridgman learnt, so I'll take my chances

>>4363966
[citation required]
crazy how he doesn't advocate doing the same in any of his teachings huh wow crazy

>>4327885
Holy shit. I'm on Loomis right now. And Loomis is flexing his baby hands. Jesus christ the skill on Loomis is gold.

>>4363966
19th century ateliers in Europe taught comparative measurement.

>>4364001
>[citation required]
He learnt from Jean-Léon Gérôme in Paris.

>>4364228
noob fr. no wonder he can only draw with a stick

>>4352765
nigger detected

>>4364228
if you don't have a citation for the shit you make up it's fine dude lol nobody knows who you are just admit you fucked up

>>4332764
So I’m black and this post makes me laugh because the guy is looking at me like “what is this dirty nigger doing here”

>>4330122
Thank you for your advice and effort, anon.

>>4364298
https://www.askart.com/artist/George_Brandt_Bridgman/19905/George_Brandt_Bridgman.aspx

>>4364383
>The French academy required a course of rigorous study including drawing from the cast or model, the study of anatomy, and rigid exercises in perspective

wow no mention of barques plates what a surprise

>>4364395
not the other anon, bargue plates came later. but what you see there is how the french academy operated.

if you don't believe, look at gerome's drawings, it's the same style of drawing as what bargue later produced for his book.(there's also gerome's stuff in the book, so no surprise there)

>>4327931
>Because they're drawn with a stick on a wall

based Bridgman channeling his inner caveman