/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>5229475
It's not difficult, the reason it's disliked is because it is not filled with floating amawu heads and that's all there is to it.

>>5229475
I suppose people think of it like a cookbook recipe or a workout plan - that all it takes is the willpower to carry out the steps.

When in reality, you have to steadily improve your hand eye coordination as well as actively learn the act of visualising forms.

>>5229476
This, beginners can't see the big picture most of the time. If someone were to redo it verbatim with anime heads, they would eat it up. If they can't see a resource directly helping them they will pass it off even if it will be beneficial. This is just a bi-product of modern times with everything being immediate and at your fingertips, you can't blame them entirely, but they refuse to accept any responsibility whatsoever.

>>5229475
The book is not the problem. The problem is that modern people are only suited for mindless consumption, distraction and addiction. Forget about learning or creating anything meaningful unless you live a very different life than 99% of western people.

where can i grab this?

>>5229475
if I make my way through this book will my drawing actually improve? I've tried it once before but didn't make it very far because I was intimidated and I was still a baby at perspective, should I try again?

>>5229486
yeah no shit people would rather draw animu heads instead of fucking ugly blooks

>>5229476
the reason it’s disliked is that it’s worthless filler that does nothing that fdfaiw doesn’t do better while not doing everything it does
it’s a garbage meme starting point for fucking toddlers

>>5229770
You see, back in my days, rich men would ride around in zeppelins, dropping coins on people. And one day, I seen J. D. Rockefeller flyin’ by– so I run out of the house with a big washtub, and—Anyway, about my washtub. I just used it that morning to wash my turkey which in those days was known as a ‘walking bird.’ We’d always have walking bird on Thanksgiving, with all the trimmings. Cranberries, ‘injun eyes,’ and yams stuffed with gunpowder. Then we’d all watch football, which in those days was called ‘baseball.

>>5229475
Zoomers rely on wispy "motivation" to do anything and if they don't get their dopamine kicks straight away then they just go back to playing videogames and watching cartoons.
Which is funny since that book starts off with funny faces to keep literal children entertained but not even that is enough for zoomers.

>>5229475
That's not even his best book (Figure drawing for all it's worth).

And to answer your question, it is not true that to draw heads or figures you don't need to draw good lines. I think people get stuck for such a long time doing figure drawing that they forget some of the most fundamentals skills needed before drawing heads.

Because you need to reverse engineer and tranform the information of the book to fit the shit you want to draw.This is near impossible for a beginner who just picked up pencil for the first time.

i feel like it's surpisingly light on instruction, like dumping a bit of info and a bunch of drawings on you feels somewhat dismissive, as if saying "eh, you'll figure it out"

>>5230061
You missed the point of the entire book completely if you believe that to be the case and it is no wonder you can't draw for shit.

>>5230248
This is the true answer.

>>5230027
Do you know basic construction? If not you should try to get to the end

>>5230841
Believe WHAT to be the case? That people don't enjoy drawing ugly heads? The book frames itself as a newcomer's guide to enjoying drawing, yet when /beg/s complain it isn't fun then people like you blame them for "not seeing the big picture." Yeah no shit, that's why they're /beg/s.

because it's about having fun with a pencil. you cynical retards don't even have the slightest clue about the spirit of what coomis was trying to say here, you're looking for some beginner to pro maximum efficiency learning tome that has all the sekrits. this book isn't for you, and you will never understand why it was made or who it was made for. back to your suffering

>>5230968
>still missing the point

lol get lost retard

Where can i find Loomis' sexy vamps?
For scientific purposes?

>>5230248
Finally an answer not out of ignorance.
I always find it funny when people who have been drawing their whole life can't fathom the fact that an absolute beg cannot get into drawing using FWAP yet call them retarded.

IC loves to spam "pyw" in order to "prove" your point but then when you turn that back around at them, their hypocrisy goes on full display.

How can (You) know what is easy or what is not easy for an absolute beginner when, not only did you not use Loomis to get out of the absolute beginner hell but, you were never an absolute beginner as an adult in the first place?

Some dumbass here told me that the advice here is generally good yet he didn't even recognize a picture of Loomis' daughter that is at the end of the book.
Then the dumbass told me he only read his "grandma's drawing books."
Wtf.
How could you be a judge about how good or bad the advice is on here when you dont even follow the advice in the first place??

>>5230248
>>5232013
come on dudes. It doesn't take a genius to draw other stuff than blooks. Just pull up reference and copy it. You don't have to draw from imagination. Go from big shapes to small. It's not that hard. Draw squids. Draw fish. Draw anime girls. But study reference first.

>>5232045
>It's not that hard
>doesn’t post work

>>5232049
dont even know how to react to that. You're fucking retarded. Did you draw those blooks? Did you copy the illustrations in the book? Good. Now do it with other reference.

>>5232045
Except autistically copying them will not make you good at drawing. It actually won't do anything for a beginner.
Not to mention that those drawing were really difficult as an absolute beg.
As a normal beg, they're not hard anymore but I hate when people give this book to absolute begs who will later end up hating drawing because they think thay if they can't draw these strange heads that they can never get good at drawing which is definitely not the case.
If that was true, that would mean that drawing was a talent all along and not a skill that you can develop.

where can i get a loomis copy

>>5232203
>click the link on this page that says "Index"
>click the link in the first post in the first thread that says "The w/ic/i"
>click the link that says "Loomis"

>>5232211
yummy yummy in my tummy

>>5232045
Beginners "just drawing" reference will just spam symbols, I swear zoomers fried their brains so much with cartoon porn that they literally can't see things straight and have a really hard time breaking out of symbol drawing.

>>5232066
Autistically copying things will teach you a lot about drawing. rendering, proportion, etc. Actually copying accurately mind you, not doing symbol garbage.
If a beginner can't copy literally what they're seeing then they are simply doing it wrong and need to go back to basics.

>>5232449
I've already done this and have learned nothing. I was no better at drawing what I wanted to actually draw after literally grinding copies from life.
I copied each body part for about 50 hours which totaled close to 300.
In the end, I realized that I could draw none of them from memory and all I ever learned was how to replicate a line or shape from a photograph to my paper which is not what I wanted.
So no. Copying barely has any use unless you know what you are doing. Telling a beginner that they should copy is done out of ignorance by INTs who can actually benefit from copying.

>>5232684
pyw

>>5232684
How many copies did you made?
Because it takes a couple thousand of drawing the same thing over and over again

>>5232684
300 hrs is nothing man. Takes years to learn this shit.

>>5232066
>Except autistically copying them will not make you good at drawing. It actually won't do anything for a beginner.

ye olde masters began their apprenticeships as children by spending about four years tracing. then they autistically copied other people's work.

>>5232684
>all I ever learned was how to replicate a line or shape from a photograph to my paper which is not what I wanted.
That sounds like a really useful skill for an artist, though. Like, if you can't copy a line by sight, that's going to seriously hamper your ability.

>>5232684
I'm assuming your goal was to draw from imagination.

Why wasn't that a part of your regular practice? If it was you wouldn't feel so stuck.

>>5229475
Here's the biggest tip for changing your mindsets anon
>that circle inside the bigger circle isn't actually a circle
Stop thinking about them as shapes and start thinking about them as a single RIGID 3D form. That small circle represents a flat space

>>5232449
>If a beginner can't copy literally what they're seeing then they are simply doing it wrong and need to go back to basics.
How much more basic does it get?

>>5231291
>can't elaborate on his point when asked
loomis shills aren't the brightest

>>5232692
That's ridiculous and I find it hard to believe that the animu artists on here did this:
>5,000 hands
>3,000 feet
>2,000 legs
>6,000 arms
>9,000 breasts
>2,000 torsos
>4,000 backs
>1,000 necks
>16,000 heads
I just absolutely refuse to believe that it takes "thousand" of drawings before you can draw ONE thing because people on here can draw well and I highly doubt they drew this much (which conscious effort).
You highly, highly overestimate how long it takes to draw a thousand drawings because you've never actually tried to do it before and assume the 10,000 hour rule is true.

>>5232782
"Years" on what premise?
That you just autistically copy from life and expect to be able to draw at the end of it? That's just stupid.

>>5233180
No.
They knew their anatomy. That's why they knew how to draw. They didn't just autistically copy things.
Look at Michaelangelo's sketchbook.
See how he takes notes?
He wasn't being autistic about how to draw as people claim here that you should be.
He was consciously trying to learn the anatomy so that he could draw from imagination.

>>5233298
It's useful if you just want to shit on begs and have something when people ask you to post your work. Little do they know that you copied a 3D model.
But my goal wasn't to be a printer. It was to draw from memory.

>>5233393
Well no one properly explained that to me.
I figured that if I just copy something enough times (as people here say you have to do) that I will just inherently gain the ability to draw that thing.

>>5233867
You should be able to copy but only to a certain extent. However, do not expect to be able to draw from memory what you are copying unless you deliberately copy for memory.
It's hard to describe.

>>5233918
>words words words words
Pyw

>>5233918
>They knew their anatomy
how the fuck do you think they learnt it.

>>5233918
https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/art-education-and-training

>They usually began their training between the ages of 12 and 14, and served for a period of between 1 and 8 years.

>Artistic training varied from one master to another. In Italy, drawing was emphasized. A pupil might start by copying or tracing drawings and paintings before moving on to sketching live models.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo#Apprenticeships,_1488%E2%80%931492

>As a young boy, Michelangelo was sent to Florence to study grammar under the Humanist Francesco da Urbino.[10][13][b] However, he showed no interest in his schooling, preferring to copy paintings from churches and seek the company of other painters.[13]

>The interiors of the older churches were covered with frescos (mostly in Late Medieval, but also in the Early Renaissance style), begun by Giotto and continued by Masaccio in the Brancacci Chapel, both of whose works Michelangelo studied and copied in drawings.[18]

>During Michelangelo's childhood, a team of painters had been called from Florence to the Vatican to decorate the walls of the Sistine Chapel. Among them was Domenico Ghirlandaio, a master in fresco painting, perspective, figure drawing and portraiture who had the largest workshop in Florence.[15] In 1488, at age 13, Michelangelo was apprenticed to Ghirlandaio

You seem to think that people just get a voila moment and suddenly know how to draw, that it's all just an intellectual exercise. This is because you're lazy. These guys got good because natural talent was grown through hours and hours and hours of focussed, hard work. History tells us this. You think he just sat there and thought about anatomy and hey, presto, greates artist in history? Fuck you're dumb. Constant practise, exactly the kind of shit you call autism. It's what professionals call 'necessary'.

You will never make it. You're not even interested in trying.

>>5234031
Did I ever say once in my post that learning anatomy was easy or that it was some one-off thing they learned?
Everything I said was factual and you are trying to put words in my reply which are not there so you can much easily argue a point I did not make.

I can't be bothered to reiterate right now.
Reread my post or dont even bother trying to reply again.

>>5234056
>Hello, my name is Michaelangelo, and my great knowledge of anatomy is why I am a great artist. I got my knowledge of anatomy from the sky, I never spent all day every day practising, I was never apprenticed at a young age and spent all day copying other people's work. Uh-uh, hard work is for /begs/ i was born with these skills.

>>5233918
>They knew their anatomy. That's why they knew how to draw.
>I knew my anatomy, so after memorizing a skeleton I could draw whatever I wanted! I never had to pick up a pencil and spend hours practising before that

>They didn't just autistically copy things.

>he showed no interest in his schooling, preferring to copy paintings from churches

I read your faggot post. And you're dumb as fuck. That's literally what you said and now you're trying to run away from it.

How the fuck do you think he learnt anatomy? Hours of autistic grind you stupid cunt. Why do you think those notebooks exist in the first place? What do you think he actually did? All day, every day, all the young Michaelanelo did was copy church paintings. That's why his father apprenticed him to a famous painter. And when he was an apprentice, all day, every day, he did the exact same thing under the guidance of a famous painter. THAT'S WHAT AN APPRENTICESHIP MEANS.

Fucking child.

>>5229475
I started it today and I had fun drawing some doodles and goofy faces, I'll probably keep at it tomorrow. My goal is to learn how to draw my own rare Pepe's.

The images in the book are great but the text is written in 1930s English. Unless you are familiar with how the language was spoken at the time, only the pictures make sense.

>>5233918
>no one properly explained to me that to practice a skill, I need to actually practice the skill I want to practice
Well, I'm sorry to hear that. I hope the next advice you blindly follow turns out better.

>>5230968
The thing is that Fun with a Pencil focuses on teaching construction in general. Hell, in the first few pages the book outright tells you and I quote "need not copy" what Loomis drew. You have to read the thing, learn the *principles* behind construction, then apply those to your own drawings. Loomis' blooks are a thing of his time. You don't have to copy those cartoons, you have to copy his methods and techniques. If you want to do the ball thing to draw a head, and drawn an anime head instead of a Loomis Blook, that's valid. You're applicating the knowledge Loomis is trying to impart in your own drawing. And by constantly doing that, your art is going to get better, thus, Loomis books helping you get better.

That's the gist of Loomis' (and any other artist's ) educational books.

>>5232692
thousands? Holy shit I guess I need to stop bullshitting and draw. The longer I wait the worse I’ll feel.

>>5229475
I don't understand this book desu. Am I supposed to get anything from the lessons or is it just a ruse to get me to practice drawing? The instructions seem very bare.

>>5232782
>300 hours
>nothing
shit.

>>5233918
Dude if you're taking everything /ic/ says as gospel then you've got bigger issues than your drawing skills.

This place is good for seeing the odd critique and gathering resources to learn but fuck following these regards advice. 90 percent of the board doesn't draw anyway and the other 10 percent tend to have no formal training or be underage autists.

What do you think students who study art do? Just copy photographs their whole time in school?

>>5235231
>Just copy photographs their whole time in school?
Not their whole time but yes they do spend a very long time copying things down to the tiniest rendering details because it's extremely important to develop observation skills.
This is not grinding though, I think there's a prevailing misconception around /ic/ where people assume they will "understand" things better if they simply grind many quick sketches when in reality it's about going as deeply as possible in one drawing as meticulously and critically as possible.

>>5234086
Sure they spend some time doing it but they also have to study mediums, art history, composition etc. There is a lot more to art than Loomis and anatomy.

How anyone who reads this board functions in society I don't know

>>5229475
This is funny because I actually dropped the book around where he introduces realistic heads and I moved to a more relatable and understanding instructional video series (which ironically also taught the Loomis method, but in contemporary english).

The beginning of the book up until head construction was amazing for getting me to actually draw things and not constantly get discouraged. I think people expect instant gratification or are too immature to trust the method and just enjoy making pictures. It's a very good book.

>>5233298
I hate that image because it literally happened to me after I had been doing art for like 4 months. I tried to draw kirby from the tutorial and it looked like fucking shit. It taught me a lesson about drawing what I actually see and not what I think I see, though.

>>5234392
In the first few pages there is also the instruction "Draw lightly all you see printed in blue." Yes Loomis hopes that at some point you will take the concepts and run with them, but he clearly also hopes that copying the blooks will lay a suitable groundwork, and there are several pages of step by step drawings encouraging you to do just that. I simply don't agree that adding facial features to a sphere is an ideal introduction to general construction principles or prepares you to use them for other things.

My biggest problem with the blooks isn't even that they're ugly. Loomis talks frequently about using basic forms instead of line, but despite that the blooks often lack a strong sense of three-dimensionality outside of the sphere itself. I can hardly blame a beginner for not understanding the relationship between the flat-seeming construction and the desired form when half the time the final result as shown will appear just as flat.

>>5230005
i heard they have it at sneed's

>>5234164
what the fuck anon, seriously what the fuck.

>>5235650
Local dialects were more niche and divided before the proliferation of television and the internet. I understand Bram Stoker and Mary Shelly who live decades earlier than I do Loomis. Loomis uses a lot of slang or at least culturally specific diction that makes understanding his prose cumbersome. This is coming from a native English speaker able to read well from an early age. If someone is ESL, they'll be even less likely to understand.

>>5235662
*lived

>>5235304
>Sure they spend some time doing it

>artist
>spends some time doing art
>spends most of their time not doing art
>michaelangelo spent all his time copying church paintings
>apprentices would begin by spending all their time copying and tracing

for fucks sake anon. no, just no. no matter how much evidence to the contrary you're presented with, you simply live in denial. and you wonder why you don't get better. i mean

>study mediums
how do you think they did that? as purely intellectual exercise or did they pick up a fucking brush and work oil on canvas?

>art history,
barely even a thing in the rennaisance

>composition
and how did they do that, sit around and masturbate?

you've been presented with evidence from actual art historians (where the fuck do you think this information came from in the first place) and all you do is deny, because you have to live in a fantasy world because it's easier that actually doing the work and realizing you only have an average level of talent, like everyone else. fuck off and stop wasting everyone's time. grow up while you're there.

drawing is not different to any other endeavour, sport, academia, trades, artisinal crafts. you have to spend years putting in the basic work before you can reach the level of being competant. you need to grow the fuck up anon.

i have a question for you, other than you want to believe it, what actual evidence, historical, academic, recorded, documented, do you have to support your posiiton? where are you getting it from? your own opinion isn't a valid source, so where are you getting your information?

>>5235662
anon if you have difficulty with any of the language in loomis you have cognitive difficulties, period. i think you're making excuses because you're finding you have difficulty drawing, and you're blaming that on the very straightforward englsih in the book. because the english in the book is straightforward and not even remotely difficult to understand, and neither is victorian english either.

>>5235675
Victorian English is far more standardised. I can read Nietzsche, Plato, and Shakespeare without any trouble, but 1920s to 1940s American English is an especially sore spot for me.

>>5235689
>Nietzsche, Plato, and Shakespeare

nietzche couldn't speak english and plato and shakespeare were not victorian. english didn't even exist when plato was alive. victorian english didn't even have standardised spelling for most of the victorian period so the idea that 1930s american english is less standardised has no basis in reality. you're grasping, anon. there is nothing in loomis that is hard to understand, you just have to practise more.

Loomis is annoying because he goes from easy to hard in seconds. There is a missing link somewhere between "baby mode" and "decent artist" that nobody has fulfilled yet.

I like loomis

>>5235917
yeah its called practice
>>5235689
>i read muh nietzche but i struggle to understand art man talk about boxes

>>5235669
If Michelangelo spent ALL of his time copying then who made his original work? Nigga they have to apply those copies to get any use out of them.

Also you're so hellbent on muh rannaiscance but you're talking on a Japanese cartoon website to a bunch of necmbeards who want to draw coom.

They copied and EXPERIMENTED.

You're so hellbent on being right that you are misconstruing. Dudes had to both copy and experiment but the average/ic/ "professor" like yourself phrases it so that dudes end up spending 3000 hours mindlessly copying hands without any actual thought or application.

>Art history was barely even a thing
Kek who was he copying then dude?

Can you please post some portraits you've done of Ben Shapiro?

>>5237020
>You're so hellbent on being right that you're misconstruing
some self awareness helps every now and then anon-kun

>>5237026
Thanks for the critique. Maybe I'll watch someone be self-aware for 1000 hours and it'll magically happen for me.

>>5234392
uh...

>>5234126
we're gonna make it, fren

>>5237535
uh

>>5237535
just take the helmet off

>>5240043
fucking kek

>>5237535
>this motherfucker fell for the "anime is just symbol drawings" meme
>he also didn't even think to match the proportions of the construction to actual anime
This is exactly how begs think

>>5237535
retarded beg go kys

>>5234126
absolutely based. i will be praying to satan that you may succeed, fellow anon

>>5229475
Three things
>it’s boring; most people don’t want to start with a “how to draw” book
>figure drawing for all it’s worth is the better Loomis book
>day one /beg/s don’t understand why forms are important yet, so reading fwap all they get from it are meaninglessly copying flat shapes
Tehmeh talked about the third point more in depth when he used to post here.