/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4971292
Loomis is my god

The problem with loomis is the people on ic who recommend his method to new artist without explaining what you should and shouldn't be doing. This is Loomis fault as much as the artist on this board.

You must understand the 1940s art scene to understand his book.Otherwise you fall for the loomis trap. His books need to be updated with the correct approach to his method. Otherwise you are setting begginers uo for failure. And proko is not a resource for that btw. He also teaches the wrong approach to loomis.

>>4971846
so what's the right approach

>>4971846
Loomis gives you a good overview of what to work on. That's literally the entire point of recommending Loomis; he shows you the fundamentals. You act as if Loomis is some kind of esoteric text only decipherable by a few which is absurd.

I will explain in a series of information dumps on this thread. So read if your curious.

I will clarify a few things and correct some misconceptions about loomis so you can understand why it seems like an enkrmous amount of people walk away from loomis with similar complaints.and a bit of hiw this connects to his books going out of print.

>>4971292
People don't know what to do after learning the meme ball heads, not enough people taking the Hampton pill, his heads were really easy to learn from

>>4971862

>>4971920
Not my fault your only art community is /ic/ and all you understand from being recommended Loomis is to just learn his head construction. Loomis was recommended long before /ic/ existed and no, they did not just point to his head construction.

>I know logic is hard.
For you, logic is probably impossible. Think about how retarded you look that when you see someone recommend Loomis, they mean to just learn the method he teaches for laying in a head drawing. You know his books teach other things right? It's a book. Not a pamphlet that just shows a ball with a cross on it. Goddamn you are fucking inbred.

>>4971926
Of course they didnt just point to his head construction.Because thats not what his method is about. Your just demonstrating thay you have no clue what loomis is actually recommended for. Your just repeating muh fundamentals. Lmao. And no one reccomended loomis books until they became free. His method however has been passed down and adapted through many art institutes.You litterally have no clue. But i blame ic sticky for this.Its insulting to loomis.

>>4971860
All artist teach fundamentals. When loomis is referenced his method and approach is what he is known for.

Also ic sticky would have his id love to draw book at least refrenced once.As thats hid actual fundamentals book.

>>4971939
>And no one reccomended loomis books until they became free
I guess we can just ignore Iain McCaig, James Gurney, Jeff Watts, Alex Ross. But you do you.

>>4971862
Hampton uses loomis method with his own approach.

>>4971887
Show where I wrote that Loomis is the only one that teaches fundamentals.

>>4971847
Being talented

>>4971888
Yeah? And his approach is way easier to understand

>>4971894
If your associating loomis with fundamentals everytime loomis is recommended to a beginner. Then you either dont understand that he teaches an actual method. Or your one of those people who recommend him to not answer questions and give solid advice to new artist.

>>4971946
Yea thats why the books stayed in print, because they had such heavy endorsement.But you do you. Its clear you dont know what your talking about.

>>4971900
It's quite clear to me that you have a reading comprehension problem. Read my first post again. Slowly.

>Then you either dont understand that he teaches an actual method
Every single teacher in existence will teach you an actual method, that's literally the entire point of being a teacher - to provide you with a method that actually works, so you aren't blindly guessing at everything.

>Or your one of those people who recommend him to not answer questions and give solid advice to new artist.
Projection.

>>4971903
>>4971900
Autism.
Go study your fundies /beg/gars

>>4971846
>The problem with loomis is the people on ic who recommend his method to new artist without explaining what you should and shouldn't be doing
That is not a problem with Loomis or /ic/. It's the churn of the place. Every few months there's a bunch of new users, new trolls, new parrots who want to fit in. Users who have been here long enough have given up trying to help these people. It's not worth the effort, it's not worth the repetition, and it's not worth rehashing the same arguments over and over again with indignant newcomers and old crabs.
The only things new artists need to hear are "read the sticky" and "stop posting until you finish reading the sticky." Everything else just devolves into rhetorical exercises, and that's not what drawing is about.

>>4971903
If im a cook who creates a new method of baking bread, lets call it the joe method. And i got famous for this method.But i also have other books teaching basic cooking, just as any other cook would.

If a new cook were to bake some bread, have it critqued and the response was needs more Joe. Thats not advice for "cooking fundamentals" thats in refrence to the exact method to baking bread tjat wad developed. Only an idiot would ignore the actual method and replace it with muh fundamentals.Thats not helping anyone.Its lazy,inaccurate, and puts people on the wrong path without answering any questions. I know logic is hard.

>>4971846
You said a lot of nothing. The fact that you didn't include your proclaimed "right method" is because you're a foolish instigator. Move along anons, nothing to see here. Just a real life plebian.

>>4971958
First of all, nice goal post moving there. Not even being subtle about it.
Second of all, so what is Loomis' method about then? I mean, other than the obvious delusions of grandeur you're emitting right now.

>>4971974
That post wasnt meant to spoon feed you information.Nor was it intended to explain the correct approach to his method. Obv you havnt been paying attention.And i havnt explained the correct approach because you guys just reminded me why i dont help the idiots on ic.Figure it out for yourself now.

>>4971976
Thats not moving the goal post. Thats just objective fact. You just dont want to deal with it because it doesnt support your argument lol.

>>4971983
>hurhur heavy endorsement, trus me my dad works at loomis!1
shut the fuck up retard

>>4971981
Lol look at you, big man on /ic/. You sure showed us idiots.

>>4971873
>draw a circle
>draw the rest of the fucking face

>>4971292
come back 6, 7 years later and y'all are still arguing about loomis. wow

>>4972068
So how does he do it?

>>4971899
hampton is fucking garbage, just burn his book.

>>4972454
Good argument, you really fucking convinced me

>Hampton
artbooks?

>>4971292
fun with a pencil is a terrible place for beginner artists
the face section is fine but he he assumes you know gesture so when those bodies look like stiff shit you're left wondering why

Honestly Loomis isn’t the book I’d give anyone if they asked me for recommendations. Vilppu and Hampton are incomparably better once you actually know what the fundamentals are. If you’re going to buy Loomis you might as well buy a nude pose-reference book from Nippon

>>4971899
this is a good point anon. that nigga loomis just writes paragraphs and draws his fucking potato heads. id say loomis started the book of gmi and hampton revised it

>>4973638
imo the best resource for the absolute beginner to learn fundies is drawabox and proko's figure course

>>4973659
different strokes, personally felt very burnt out from drawing after trying to grind drawabox

to be fair they do say not to grind drawabox autistically in their faq and just do it like 15 min at a time but they dont mention it anywhere in the actual articles, you have to click in the faq lol

>>4973632
None of you fucks actually go through the book huh?

>>4973664
I'M... I'M GONNA LOOOOOOOM

>>4971861
um, so did I miss something? Where is the series of info dumps?

I may have missed it for all the other fuckery going on in here.

>>4973670
The trolling derailed the information.

>>4971899
Why do all these fuckers suggest the keystone is completely level with the brow and the nose, when it's supposed to first drop inward at the brow and then meet the nose

>>4973664
To be fair, most people don't have the arcane knowledge required to reach page 129 of a 119 page book.

>>4972068
you have 40 pages worth of building up to that point, this post shows how much people retarding on loomis read his books

>>4973669

>>4973664
>fun with a pencil