/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

Needs more Moaimis

>>6922609
not this again.
Copy the method, not the blooks.
Put the pdf away. Draw a sphere, then add random faces and noses of YOUR creation.

Why do you draw these heads? They look wacky and I would rather draw animals or gestures as a beg

>>6922618
OP fell for a literal /beg/trap

>>6922609
>fell for the meme and started with loomis
A new NGMI permabeg, I pity you.

mfw you don't trust in Loomis

>>6922613
Basedcadvice, draw some simplified Moaiheads and work your way up

>>6922609
How are you making his hideous cartoon drawings even worse? That shits supposed to be for baby beginners.
Not to be an ass, but you're going to get filtered MUCH harder later on in the book, once it gets to the realistic figure.

>>6922615
Don't totally agree - there's something to be said about being able to recreate a drawing, at the very least for study purposes.

>Use it
>Don't use it
Well, how did you guys do it?

>>6922725
just use the method. maybe practice eyes/ears/noses on their own for a bit.

>>6922725
I copied all the images in the book the best I could, using the methods talked about in the book. You don't need to be as thorough as I was though, there really are some terribly dog-shit drawings in there (cartooning is not Loomis' forte) - so skip the drawings you think are ugly.

>>6922609
>he fell for loomeme

Successfully locked you into being a permabeg. Congrats on this /ic/ , seriously.

>>6922609
You mean they're not supposed to look like this?

>>6922702
I agree being able to replicate a drawing is a good skill to train. It's just that that's not the point of Loomis's book. There are way better books on learning how to copy

You draw more.

>>6922609
Loomis is a false prophet.
I mean seriously, look at those cheeks. When you drew them, did you think, “ah yes let me attach these spherical masses and then apply gravity so they look like taut bundles of flesh and muscle.”? Of course not, and it’s loomis’ fault for not expounding on the matter
You need to study form, from life, and you should also start reading research on how learning works. You need to unironically learn how to learn

>>6922873
my child will get through the whole book. he WILL reach the last hill!

>>6922923
>You need to study form, from life
loomis says this in the book. guess you never read it...

>>6922936
Loomis mentions that as a footnote and doesn’t put the emphasis he needs to.

>>6922945
>footnote
>it's the first page

>>6922945
>doesn’t put the emphasis he needs to.
it was enough in his era. people need to be spoon fed now huh?

>>6922609
Loomis is so you can learn how to construct figures, that's it. There's no Loomis for your lack of creativity much like how there's no gym for your lack of height.

>>6922609
i pretty much use the Loomis Method for anime faces

>>6922609
>What do?
Maybe draw more than two heads?
And take your time while doing it.
Maybe also work on your accuracy using a tablet, if you are new to that. Google some accuracy or warm up routines and practice those every day until you feel like you can make an accurate stroke anywhere you please on canvas.
Your underdrawing in blue looks quite messy, becoming more accurate will help with that. You should be able to draw spheres and ovals in one confident stroke. By all means the right cheek and the top of the head are quite clean. Eyes look messy due to pen pressure variance. Consider turning that feature off or configuring a softer or harder pressure curve depending on your tendencies. I'd go with soft where you don't have to press very hard at the end to reach the maximum pressure levels. And I'd never configure a gap of more than 3 px in diameter between min and max brush size, if you're in the alpha stages of inking. But ultimately I'd leave it off until you gain more control and comfort with wielding a pen to begin with.

More importantly, you're not getting filtered. What the fuck did you expect if these are your first digital drawings? That they wouldn't suck? That you would be good from the get go? Why would that be? Everyone sucks in the early stages. Keep reading what the old man has written, understand and learn his method and copy the few drawings he has in his book, it's quite short after all. You've started now, are you going to drop it immediately at the first hint of discomfort? Push through and continue the lectures. If it feels like torture, then by all means switch up the exercises or just draw for fun or whatever interests you, and then come back to Loomis later. Keep doing small steps towards the end goal, you now have a concrete aim. That's good. When I did Fun with a Pencil I was similarly surprised about a) how long it took to copy one shitty ugly-ass cartoon head and b) how bad they looked. Slowly but surely however, they improved.

>>6922637
pyw (you won't)

>>6922634
>>6922637
>>6922873
>>6922923
>>6922945
pyw (you won't)

>the setting of the year of our lord 2023, eve of 2024
>still the slaves of /ic/ draw the loomis heads

nothing better illustrates the fact that 4chan is a trap

>>6923133
thx

>>6923415
I'm the beg who would rather draw animals than wacky retarded heads
You post your work (dont post wonky loomis heads)

>>6923029
MIkufag?

>>6922615
>Draw a sphere, then add random faces and noses of YOUR creation.
wow, what an amazing teaching tool. why do people shill this garbage exactly?

>>6923722
That's just the 1st exercise you silly billy. By page 100 you'll have done a great variety, learned basics of perspective etc.

what the fuck is a loomi

>>6925498
I have 3 loomis, I'll sell them to you. dm me @blookchamp34

how is loomis a beg trap if there's people that claim to have learned from just reading loomis? if you recommend Brend Eviston people will call that a beg trap and will call you a shill, same with keys to drawing. it's like everything is a beg trap to these people

>>6922609
pick up 3d modeling and learn to construct the hard way

>>6925541
Doesn't make me instantly good at drawing after reading/watching/studying = beg trap.

It's that simple, not everything works for everyone, but this board is full of spiteful retards who can't even consider the possibility that they're the problem.

>>6922751
These are cute.

>>6922609
>I'm getting filtered by Loomis. What do?

>Stay your course and continue to collide against the dead end that is Loomeme, either by drawing those fugly heads or the 'stick' figures(personally, I feel the stick figures as a construction exercise are a more productive practice in general).
>Spawn more pointless threads like this one.
>Realize how much time you've lost and allow yourself to fall into a deep instrospective state where you question your true motives and goals.
>Get up from your chair, fix yourself some decent breakfast, read the Czechia times and have a small normie break from your schizo-''please activate windows''-assburgerism for once.
>Stop Looming for good this time.
>Leave this waste of a site for good.
>Profit?

>>6927230
>Leave this waste of a site for good.

But, the gold nuggets of true wisdom. Where else will we find the gold nuggets of true wisdom

>>6922923
> doesn't realize it's the start not the end
> got filtered af

>>6923029
Why tho?
Circle with a cross is more than enough construction for anime faces

>>6922609

>>6925571
Loomis is a beg trap simply because his books are bad.
Why study a book that was targeted at people from the mid 1900s? Especially when there are far better books/teachers to follow that are more recent but more importantly just better.
You don't study medical anatomy from an old medical book from the 1800s when there are modern ones that blows it out the water.
Hampton, Bridgman, Scott Eaton, anatomy for sculptors, Vilppu, Rey Bustos to name a few.

>>6928965
>there are far better books/teachers to follow that are more recent but more importantly just better
Blatant fucking lies
Even japs recommend Loomis above all else yet only /ic/ for some reason doubts his genius

>>6929465
It's just retards who confuse their personal preferences for facts. No technique or book is going to be the perfect fit for every person out there, but angrily telling everyone to ignore loomis because it didn't work for you is peak crab behaviour.

Loomis is great, but if it doesn't work for you, move on to the next recommended book - no need to fuss over it.

>>6928965
A lot of artists have gotten good while using the loomis method. He's not the "End all, be all" method creator but people have gotten good with his books.

>Why study a book that was targeted at people from the mid 1900s? There are books that are more recent!

Because the method is timeless. You take loomis and apply the method to the style you want. You alter it to suit your needs.

If Loomis doesn't work for you then that's fine too. Different methods for for different people. But to say the books are bad and don't work at all is nuts.

I honestly find the rotating box method easier for me to understand than Loomis.

Or rather, rather than using his starting construction of a sphere with the sides cut off, use a rectangular box. You can still use the same vertical proprotions for placing teh hairline, eyebrows, eyes, nose, and mouth afterwards

>>6930615
The way loomis does heads, and seemingly most people, really by just using a circle as a base is much quicker though which is nice. Using a box really helps with the perspective and placing all the features correctly but takes quite a bit longer.

>>6922609
IMO
>Work on your accuracy (Krenz/Betty Edwards) to about 80%, learn to draw what you see instead of what you know
>Copy the drawings using the methods laid out (ball, cross, cut sides, find thirds, etc. - don't just treat them like bargue plates or copy the lines mindlessly, think about what the artist was doing)
>Do them again from memory while hiding the reference
>Draw 1,000 block-ins from different angles
my work (and picrel):
>>6931103
>>6931105
>>6931108
>>6931179
>>6931188
>>6931458

>>6922615
>copy the method, not the blooks.
wow i wish someone told me to not listen to the book telling me to copy it BEFORE I did.

>>6924004
>random lines added to a drawing
does he explain those things in the book

>>6931476
random? can't you use your brain and see what those lines are touching? and yes, he explains it.

>>6931475
/ic/ can't read, nor draw.

>>6922609
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fu2awnEXSxs

just go through bradwynn jones videos on loomis (search his video archive, this is one example). he will walk you through the loomis plates in a few videos and show you how to go from 'draw a circle' to 'now draw the face' that the loomis book skips over. his other portrait videos always use loomis and reilly rhythms to lay out the construction phase and he explains what and how he measures and why he chooses certain parts. if you want to learn how to do portraits, just follow along with his video. simple and easy step by step with explanations in real time (no time lapses that skip steps). can learn to render if you watch his other videos as well, but they all start with loomis construction.

>>6922609
>falling for the beg trap
Actual retard here.

>>6933952
the only trap is not turning more pages.

>>6929473
No, the real problem is retards recommending Fun With a Pencil to beginners.

It is a shit book, and absolutely not something beginners should start with. If beginners do not know how to draw a circle or a cube, they absolutely should not be starting out with faces/heads. The book says it's fun and simple, but the moment the beginner tried and fails, he gets disheartened by the results, and demotivated. This is why it's a notorious beg trap.

>>6933958
>If beginners do not know how to draw a circle or a cube, they absolutely should not be starting out with faces/heads.
The book tells you this.
>The book says it's fun and simple, but the moment the beginner tried and fails, he gets disheartened by the results, and demotivated. This is why it's a notorious beg trap.
What the hell are you talking about? The beginner becoming disheartened and demotivated because their first drawings don't look good is not the fault of a book, but of that beginner being a narcissistic, sheltered idiot. In absolutely no way does it make sense that you should succeed the first time you try something, nor that you should be "demotivated" and/or give up because you failed. Anyone who thinks failing is an immediate clue to give up is just a victim of shitty parenting.

i genuinely don't understand how he wraps forms around the face. i don't understand the perspective of it.

>>6922609
Hey anon, It's important to not get demotivated at this stage, lemme give you three pieces of advice...
1-Use a pen tool with no size jitter for now, it's kinda adding to the awfullness
2-I notice in the cheek forms that you kinda flattened them when they are receding, part of the problem is that you're forgetting that they have volume and should protrude. Try making one with just spherical forms (that look that same from every viewpoint)
3-try to make some crisp, nice looking copies of some of the blooks

picrel is an old loomis blook

>>6933958
>but the moment the beginner tried and fails, he gets disheartened by the results, and demotivated. This is why it's a notorious beg trap.
Couldn't this be said about every single art book out there? So is every art book a beg trap?

>>6934004
Read the page from the post you were quoting, retard.

>>6934479
No.
Nobody is going to feel bad about not being able to draw a circle properly, because it's just a basic shape with no aesthetic appeal.
Drawing a face and having it come out ugly and deformed and nothing like you expect is a common demotivator.

It's far better for beginners to start with basic shapes and volumes, intermixed with studies, measuring and sighting.
In FWAP, the first exercise is literally draw a face. "Just draw a circle or oval, add the nose, eyes, eyebrows, ears, cheeks and mouth! see? it's easy and fun!" - except it actually isn't even remotely easy for beginners.

It's a garbage book, and an absolutely horrible thing for a beginner to start with. Only retards recommend it for begs.

>>6934527
It's not so much about the face, but a demonstration of construction for your drawing. And faces are tr goal of almost all artists. What should it be instead? Draw 100 boxes and only then can you try a face? When should using simple shapes as construction be I troduced to a beg. If you can write you can draw a circle/triangle/parallel lines. These are almost basic motor skills everyone has.

>>6934535
*Wanted to add, the first face you draw will always suck. So will the second and third, and 100th. No book or method can save a beg from that, outside of just tracing, but even then it will look shit your first time.

>>6934535
This pic >>6933958 is the first exercise the beginner is asked to do in FWAP.

Where is the explanation about construction? What part of "Add the eyes, ears, mouth brows, etc" has anything to do with the process of construction?

Just because faces might be the end goal for an aspiring artist does not mean it's what they should literally start with. Do you not understand the concept of easing your way up to more difficult subjects? It's like what that Krenz chinaman says; if you're starting math for the first time, you don't literally start with calculus.

>>6934544
cont.

>>6934549
tl;dr, too many words.
Books like that are trash. Stop reading and draw.

>>6934549
these are the preceding pages. you've never opened the book and are just repeating contrarian shit you've heard on ic.

>>6934551
>opens a book, expects not to read
wut

>>6934552
You're still missing the point you stupid idiot.

>>6934559
The point I caught was
>It's far better for beginners to start with basic shapes and volumes, intermixed with studies, measuring and sighting.
I agree with that, though not sure measuring and sighting will help them draw a cartoon face from construction. I showed loomis tells you to start your drawing with basic shapes and volumes.
how many balls and cubes do you think one should have drawn before the next page is approachable?

Imagine getting filtered by an art instruction book made for kids.

>>6934666
I don't have to imagine... wait fuck!

>>6931475
what do picrel's words mean to you, Anon? Can you understand English?

>>6934693
Ohhhh you need "not" copy. my dyslexic ass read that as you need "to" copy. yoda ass mofo loomis. how many others had to suffer this fate?

>>6922609
Reminder that Loomis is an absolute meme and no artist under 40 actually reads art books to get good.
Just draw

>>6934752
Just draw blooks!