/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>5202708
all books make /ic/ angry and /beg/ is full of zoomers now

>>5202712
>/beg/ is full of zoomers now
You mean /ic/ is full of zoomers now

>>5202708
Probably because they show, at the same time, that there are specific, understandable steps you can take to become better at drawing, and that these people still can't do it.

>>5202708
because they require some level of patience and work and don't feature anime.

>>5202717
/thread

>>5202717
fuck's sake. It's this, isn't it?

>>5202729
Fun with a pencil can feature anime. Also it hardly feels like patience or work to me. Loomis' other books are where the real work is.

>>5202708
loomis: have fun with a pencil, do these easy steps to draw funny comic characters :) Have fun!
drawabox: Do these exercises to get better hand control and fundamentals, you should also use them for warmup. But always use at least as much time for doodling and drawing what you want as you use the exercises. Learn, but don't forget to have fun!

/ic/: I hate drawing, how do I get furry anime coombux fast

>>5202744
I have a "I hate drawing and I hate my drawings" friend that draws every day but refuses to learn fundamentals, zoomers just have a really bad attention span and severe lack of discipline.

>>5202717
See that’s a lie though. 100% of /beg/s who read FWAP for the first time come to /beg/ and post their Loomis heads and they look like shit every single time. Without fail. If the steps were so easy to follow, you’d think that SOMEONE would get it on the first try wouldn’t you?
And of course, when people ask what they’re doing wrong, no one can ever give them a really satisfying answer. Again, if the steps were repeatable and teachable, SOMEONE would be able to come along and say “here, you messed up on this step” and show them the correct answer and then the /beg/ wouldn’t make that same mistake again. But of course, it never goes like that.
The truth is that the only way to get good at drawing is to build up intuition through repeated trial and error. It can’t be distilled to a textbook formula. That’s why people get angry at Loomis and DAB. Because they’re fundamentally incapable of delivering on what they promise.

>>5202751
It's been a long time since I read Loomis, but like pretty much all teachers, doesn't he stress that you need to draw A LOT in order to improve?
No one's going to get it on the first try, that's for sure.

>>5202751
I think the only thing books can really do is hand people a framework to help guide them learn intuitively. While books claiming to have all the answers are utter garbage, I don't think it's worth knocking books because they are incapable of doing the learning for people.
Every different method that a book presents to an artist in training serves to limit the variables and guide the individual through the first couple of steps. Once the person stretches the framework to it's limit they'll eventually learn when it is and isn't useful, and will have encountered enough questions to find something new to pursue out of their own natural curiosity.
The real problem comes down to /beg/s having unreasonable expectations for books like Loomis. They open the book expecting the sphere+plane to immediately solve their problems, when in actuality all it really exists for is to help process visual information in a way that gets the artist in training to think more critically about what they're doing. Without the desire to think critically no amount of books, tutorials, or drawing sessions can save someone.
The biggest issue is that stereotypical /beg/ doesn't want to think.

>>5202751
Of course your first attempt won't be "perfect", what matters is that you are learning what should be done and then you keep practicing that. If there are no obvious mistakes other than just bad line control then there's no problem here.
DAB in particular does not cover how to make things pretty, it's purely about internalizing perspective and construction.

>>5202757
Yes, he even mentions that total beginners won't be able to 1:1 reproduce what he does and that they shouldn't be discouraged by that. Instead they should come back to the different key parts from time to time and try them again to see their progress

FWAP teaches construction, gesture, perspective, etc. It's all you need to get started drawing better-looking figures. The book doesn't teach creativity or problem solving, something you have to provide yourself. Anybody who gets filtered by FWAP is an idiot. It's not a fault of the book.

>>5202751
c'mon man. It's simple construction. No book will get beginners to do it right on the first try, just like no one can ride a bicycle on the first try. But there's clear cut and dry theory to it, not intuition.

>>5202751
>wah wah where's the instant gratification what do you mean practicing??
lmfao every time, your perspective is so skewed and I'm amazed you failed to notice that.

>The truth is that the only way to get good at drawing is to build up intuition through repeated trial and error.
This is a great way to collect a laundry list of horrible habits and take 10x longer than you should to learn the basics.

>>5202708
Loomis is good but drawabox pisses me off because it's a poorly done, soulless ripoff of Peter Han's classes

>>5202773
>No book will get beginners to do it right on the first try
So you agree with my central point. No one can give you a set of repeatable steps to follow that will make you produce good drawings. There’s something to it that you just have to figure out yourself through experience. We can argue over how much practice it “should” take someone before they start drawing good heads, and what percentage of it is theory vs practice, but we agree on the basic point that you can’t get good results without practice.
When begs post their shitty Loomis heads, all most people ever tell them is “you don’t understand Loomis”. The implication is that if they had just read Loomis more carefully, then they would be drawing good Loomis heads. But we agree that that’s false. That’s why people get frustrated with Loomis.

>>5202815
If you ask for directions to the mall and someone tells you the right way but you still have to walk there yourself, do you also get mad at that person?

>>5202819
Depends, am I an American?

>>5202819
Read my post again, I don’t think you understood it. I am arguing for the importance of doing it for yourself instead of thinking that Loomis will give you the answers.

>>5202835
I agreed with you. I don't agree with the people you talked about.

>>5202815
I agree with your initial point but the connection you're making is wrong. Drawing isn't intuition. It absolutely isn't something you have to figure out yourself. It's just very difficult, like learning the piano. You have to rewire your brain to think three-dimensionally.

I just disagree with you when you say: "It can't be distilled to a textbook formula" when in reality the there is a formula to drawing, and its just very hard and takes a lot of practice. The formula is the fundamentals, and without that formula, beginners would absolutely improve much slower.

I am still a begginner, but fun with a pencil made my drawings get much better. Just skip the start with the retarded faces and start with the construction of the real human faces and the body (what helped me the most).

>>5202847
Yeah that's what my analogy about walking to the mall was. Loomis won't do your walking for you but wihout him or someone like him there's a good chance you'll walk off a cliff.

The thing with Loomis is that it's just one out of the hundreds of books that teaches you the same thing.
It's not going to work for everyone of course, in which case you should look for another method.
Problem is that in ic Loomis is presented as the ultimate teacher who will work for everyone, which is of course false.
Some beginners maybe improve more by studying Huston or Hitokaku or what have you instead of the endless Loomis head grind, but they wouldn't know that because everyone tells them "need more Loomis" like it is the only way to success, and if the individual fail with that than he's NGMI.

>>5202777
DAB teaches discipline and good habits which is really what zoomers lack most, it doesn't matter if you have the best learning material in the world if don't learn effectively.

>>5202885
How do you know which book will work for some random beginner? Especially if they haven't put in the work? How do you make the decision of which book to recommend?
Loomis is my standard recommendation because he worked for me and his books are easy enough to find online.

>>5202751
There it is. Like clockwork

>>5202708
I think Keys to Drawing is the best absolute noob drawing book because it teaches a bunch of skills like measuring and that it's ok to be loose/restate a drawing.

FWAP is really bad for beginners. The language in the book is really hard to read through and he blogs a lot of inane shit that you don't need to know. The cartooning style isn't appealing to most people today and assumes a lot of skill that a beginner won't have, mainly dexterity and control of the pencil. There's a massive difficulty spike I think around 30-40 pages in when it starts showing the mannekin that feels like you got dropped in the deep end and don't know how to swim. No matter how good a /beg/ is, they're probably drawing with a #2 pencil and lined or copy paper so it's going to look like shit.

Loomis is good to go back to when you're an /int/. I really like Creative Illustration and Figure Drawing for All Its Worth, the head and hands book is alright.

DAB is just bad in general. It's a shitty ripoff of Peter Han's course which is much better. Some of the ideas in it are good but it promotes the wrong kind of drawing. Yes, you need practice and discipline but doing studies for the sake of studies isn't learning how to draw better. You need to have fun and be able to try drawing from imagination or copying works you like. Otherwise you get stuck in a rut only doing studies never thinking you're good enough or ready to make a "real" piece of your own. There's no reason to go past the first chapter of it. It should be purely mileage.

Beginners should work on the drills in this vid as warmup and read up on the dynamic sketching stuff if they want. If they want perspective I think How To Draw is the best all-encompassing source of what you need for basic perspective in drawing. Skim through it and try drawing the parts you don't understand, otherwise you already understand perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgDNDOKnArk

>>5202713
>/ic/ is full of zoomers now
You mean 4chan is full of zoomers now

draw a box man can't draw a straight line and also the perspective in his own work is fucked up. a shitty ripoff of peter han that I'm convinced people only shill as a joke or to make others fall for it.
also please put draw a box in the OP next time so my filters catch it.

>>5202908
Feel free to tell me where I’m wrong. What I said is backed up by years of watching hundreds of /beg/s go through the exact same cycle.

fwap is unironically garbage and a beg trap
it’s infantile and meant for children
you give adults figure drawing for all it’s worth
dab is just garbage, period

>>5202947
You mean practically the whole internet if not the whole world is ruined beyond all repair and will never be good again

>>5202751
>t. beg

>>5202751
you sure showed everyone

>>5202708
Because these books draw/pages/resources/etc point out to them that while talent is very much real, you CAN actually learn to be even a pro, even if you have zero talent
And then there are these entitled zoomers who can't draw a straight line but refer to their little selves as artists because they have a twitter acc with 25 followers and they are fucking sure they are talented but can't get from 1 to 2 for shit

>>5202708
it is the crab killer

>>5202751
>See that’s a lie though. 100% of /beg/s who read FWAP for the first time come to /beg/ and post their Loomis heads and they look like shit every single time.
of course it will look like shit, they still didn't develop line control yet, it takes time, but it always look better than the shit that they did before.

>>5202944
>The cartooning style isn't appealing to most people today and assumes a lot of skill that a beginner won't have, mainly dexterity and control of the pencil.
isn't the point of the cartoons to train your dexterity?

> Yes, you need practice and discipline but doing studies for the sake of studies isn't learning how to draw better. You need to have fun and be able to try drawing from imagination or copying works you like. Otherwise you get stuck in a rut only doing studies never thinking you're good enough or ready to make a "real" piece of your own.
I am pretty sure that dab says exactly that tho. How long ago have you read it? perhaps it is a new addition.

>>5202851
Can you really? Cause damn I'm not really a fan of those of faces. They drain the motivation out of me

because stonehouse has finally just been uploaded in it's entirety in english in one of the artbooks threads so anyone still shilling loomis is unironically crabbing wheter they realize it or not.

>>5204475
ngmi

For fwap I don't know but for DAB:
>the guy says "don't grind" yet people grind
>the first two lessons are focused on primitives forms,very boring to draw for most people
>the teacher isn't that good at his craft,so he dosen't have any autority outside "muh I learned from peter han"

>>5204838
like Moderndayjames just teaching you Scott Robertson for dummies, you don't have to be great to repackage other artists teachings into a way that's more appealing to people who don't want to read books. seems to be an easy hustle

>>5202768
Also, FWAP does not intruct on *drawing what you see*, eliminating symbol drawing etc. And that should be one of the first things anyone learns.

>>5204893
yes
construction, gesture/perspective is not all you need to draw good figures if you can't get the proportions right, it will still look like garbage
accurate proportions should be the first goal as its kind of a pre-requisite for everything else.

Have you tried no-fwap february?

>>5204899
and to do thats it is better at first to literally just copy things as closely as you see them (like the upside down Picasso exercise). If you can't do that then no amount of boxes or tubes will make you draw better figures

>>5202768
>FWAP teaches gesture
Gee thanks for letting me know you’ve never read FWAP, because it never talks about gesture at all.

>>5204902

>>5205061
So “gesture” just means “any type of sketch or simplified construction at all” now?

>>5205083
Yes

>>5204893
>>5204899
I agree that's important, but the premise of the book is to improve your ability to draw exaggerated figures. Proportion is not important for that. He says in the book that messing up proportions is a fun way to create variation and actively encourages you to do it.

FWAP is showing you how to build figures like how you'd build a snowman. You snap some basic primitives together and a form emerges. This is absolutely "learning to draw". The book is free and it's a good first step. Other books may teach the material better and more thoroughly, but FWAP receives undeserved hate.

>>5205083
Wikipedia:
>The primary purpose of gesture drawing is to facilitate the study of the human figure in motion.
I would say those few pages are definitely about gesture.

>>5204902
holy shit you got btfo

>>5205085
So you’re never going to tell /beg/s they’re doing gesture wrong again because ANY type of simplified sketch or drawing counts aa gesture right?

>>5205127
Don't reply to that anon's post, coward. Reply to the one where you got fucking wrecked.

>>5205127
just because something is simplified doesn't make it impossible to get it wrong, a cube is a simple form and some begs can't even draw that right, fucking retard

>>5205127
You should stop trying to salvage your face, no one will judge anon

>>5205131
>>5205061
>>5205083
I don't know what else you want

>>5205136
If sticks on a box are gesture and Vilppu's wireframe people are gesture and whatever the fuck Proko does are all "gesture" then "gesture" doesn't mean anything at that point. It just means "whatever you like to do when you first start a drawing".

>>5205181
Yeah, was it that hard to understand?

>>5205181
>The primary purpose of gesture drawing is to facilitate the study of the human figure in motion.

>>5205173
Apologize to >>5202768 for writing this >>5204902 brain-dead comment where YOU were the one who demonstrated having not read -- or at least comprehended -- the book.

>>5205181
>and whatever the fuck Proko does
kek

>>5205181
>doesn't mean anything at that point. It just means "whatever you like to do when you first start a drawing".
You need to decide which one it is, anon

>>5205200
Great, thank you for giving me the freedom to decide what I want gesture to mean for me. I understand that /ic/ isn't one person, so some people might not understand where I'm coming from with these posts. But next time someone makes a post like "that's not gesture because you just did contours" or "that's not just because you need to use C and S curves", I'll be able to refer them to this thread to show that the official /ic/ position is that ANY type of sketching at all can be gesture.

>>5205222
You can't say that if you don't know how to gesture

>>5205181
gesture is action and body language. Whats so hard about that to grasp?

>>5205229
Effectively conveying that without using a fuckload of useless lines is a skill that takes years to master.

>>5205226
We have established that "gesture" doesn't mean anything, it just means whatever anyone wants it to mean. Therefore it doesn't make sense for some people to "know how to" gesture while others don't.

>>5205234
Where did we decide it means whatever anyone wants it to mean?

>>5204788
Why would someone start with an anatomy book instead of loomis?

>>5202708
Because the most BASIC of fundamentals, drawing geometric shapes exclusively, is fucking boring.

>>5202751
based and redpilled.

Me after reading FWAP and perspective made easy

>>5205258
Impossible!
No one has ever been able to put together all 5 pieces of Loomis-xodia before!

>>5202708
because loomis lore is completely shit, I read Fun with a pencil. I felt no connection to the protagonist, the plot was drawn out, contrived and full of plot holes. the author was constantly creating new characters and while they looked the part they were completely devoid of personality. in conclusion I wouldnt read it again nor recommend it to inquiring readers. dont get me started on draw a box that game was fucking terrible

>>5205358
it all comes together in Fdfaiw. Give it another shot

>>5205363
are you really this dense?

>>5205397
no u

>>5205397
i was just playing along :/

>>5205446
sorry
i actually appreciate the joke now
it was pretty funny

>>5202751
ikr
i read this book on building muscle and lifted once and got no gains >:(

>>5205487
I’m legitimately amazed that so many people couldn’t understand my post.
/ic/ is the person who tells you that you’re not gaining muscle because you didn’t understand the book about weight lifting.

>>5205496
pyw

>>5205363
I can’t see him coming back from this honestly he’s really drawn himself into a corner

>>5205499
*post your body

>>5205397
pyw you dilating tranny schizo

>>5203026
I pray for a meteor every single day

>>5205499
You first, let's see what Loomis did for you. :^)

>>5205258
>>5205874

>>5205891
not that guy but the 2020 stuff is pretty shit and because there's literally only one reference in 2019, i can't really tell if you went from really shit to shit or if you were always shit

>>5205950
pyw

>>5205953
just a quick sketch i've been working on

>>5205968
not yours, eat shit /beg/

>>5205970
>posts original sketch
not yours

the absolute state of /ic/

>>5205973
stfu stupid /beg/tard

>>5205977
see, this is why i don't post my work
i either get blamed for stealing or crabbed on

lesson learned

>>5205980
and who the fuck are you, drink my piss fag

>>5205980
Pyw

>>5205983
>>5205992
>give them a millimeter and they want a whole kilometer
there needs to be a rule that anytime someone posts "pyw" that person would have to post their own
i'm not posting my work to prove some /beg/ wrong
give me a reason to want to prove you wrong.
you do that by showing me you're not some random /beg/ retard
otherwise, fuck off and take this loomis head

>>5205258
>>5206001
ur turn now /beg/tard

>>5204801
I knew it

>>5206006
>error
reply did not contain work and therefore this post returns likewise

>>5206021
retarded faggot

>>5206021
i knew you were another /beg/tard with big mouth and nothing of value, so fuck off you too