/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>7109598
go take life drawing classes

The point of copying Bridgman or anyone else is to learn general constructive principles and anatomy that can be applied to ANY figure. If you want to learn to draw women in particular, study artists who you think draw sexy women.

>>7109598
Copy Michiking twice then

>>7109598
Loomis: Figure drawing for all it's worth. when people say "needs more loomis", this is the book.

ok are you convinced? gonna try it?

>>7109664
okay you're right. His females are actually beautiful. We always go right back to Loomis huh.

While digging around I founjd a book called
"Sketching Women: Learn to Draw Lifelike Female Figures" by Studio Atelier 21 as well.

>>7109675
just copy your favorite artists and >>7109629

stop being retarded, retard-kun

just draw every pose from the master anatomy book 4 from memory lol

>>7109598
you will have to make your own book or you are ngmi

>>7109783
noted.

what is pic from? your work?

>>7109675
>We always go right back to Loomis huh.
There's a reason why pros who aren't interested in spoon-feeding newbs just tell them to read Loomis.

>>7109598

>>7109858

>>7109783
She has a young face and an old woman's body.

>>7109808
Some anon made it for another thread earlier to explain how to do saggy breasts.

>>7110406
ref i used is probably mid 20s but i went too dark on some of the hatching and contours here so she does look even older
>>7110435
this is the one from the other thread, the one in this one is more of a second edition, fatter and more saggy
going to make a petite one next and then move on to something else, maybe clothes

>>7110481
Love your style desu, would pay for a pdf/folder with a bunch of these.

why act like you can only copy one thing?

also get a physical copy

>>7110487
what difference does a physical copy make?

>>7110487
that reminds me i need to get some sort of book stand/holder I have a bunch of art books (with no digital copy) I never reference because it's easier to just pull something up on a screen
are there actually good brands for this or do I just get a gibberish Chinese one on Amazon

>>7110487
I'm sure if you buy more books, your art will automatically magically improve ....
>fell for the "buy my book" artists

>>7109660
>>7109662
>>7109664
dead and rid of any emotion
so this level of dry photo-style drawing is what ya'll want to achieve? uhum.

>>7109663
hatching like that in nude pictures is pretty dumb, unless it's some latinx chick with mad body hair. style issue

>Käthe Kollwitz
i bet you guys hate her

>>7110487
Hello Bridgman. 0 Bitches in there, no tnx.

And I'm not acting like I can copy only one thing, that's why I'm asking suggestions :)

>>7110481
how to learn to draw like u? ur females are nice

>>7110523
post good ones then

>>7110530
you go first

>>7110525
You have to practice what you want to draw; the fundamentals are what they are but Loomis is selling kitchen appliances to Presbyterians, there's nothing titillating unless you like old timey dresses girls used to wear before HR departments were invented

>>7110538
idk man. >>7110523
is the expert apparently

>>7109598
>coiled up retard wrist
why did bridgman draw men like they were just knocked unconscious and are going full fencing response?
this shit is worse than Egon-Schiele-fingers

So... the consensus seems to be, forget Bridgman and just do Loomis and alongside master studies of pieces from artists I think make appealing women. Is this correct?

That seems to make sense...

>>7109858
>>7109598
Am I the only person who finds Hogarth's anatomy drawings to be a lot more helpful than Bridgman's? Sure they're heaving stylized, but they're much clearer and generally better job of conveying the structure than Bridgman's, which almost everybody agrees can sometimes be hard to understand, especially for a beginner.

Man you're cool. He has the physical copy, everyone!

>>7109598
He doesn't teach me how to draw cute anime girls shitting in the toilet

>>7110595
you know as they say "those who can't do, teach"
is there anything worthwhile that Bridgemeng painted or drew in his lifetime that left a mark? or was he just an ad illustrator like Leyendicklet?

>>7110600
>not wanting the anime girls shitting on you
Ngmi

>>7110523
>Käthe Kollwitz
I love her work and post it here from time to time too(recently in a greyscale art thread). I posted the Loomis images, whom I love for different reasons, I'm sure if he wished he could make some figures entwined look very emotional, he has the foundations to do so. Anon asked for an alternate to Bridgman, Loomis makes good guides. Copying drawings of Kollwitz isn't a bad idea( I've done it), but how is that going to solve his anatomy problem?

>>7110600
no i dont want to draw them shitting.

>>7110603
>left a mark
His teaching left a mark. He taught Loomis, he taught Niclolaides and Reilly...
He also taught Norman Rockwell

>>7110634
>but how is that going to solve his anatomy problem?
there are two different goals here: understanding and accurately recreating anatomy and being able to draw something that rings "true" in terms of SOVL (not necessarily accurate)
I believe that /ic/ 99% of the time is obsessed with an arbitrary accuracy rather than creating something that is worth looking at.

>>7110646
>He taught Loomis, he taught Niclolaides and Reilly...
>He also taught Norman Rockwell
ok cool. follow up question: Did any of those shilled teachers create anything that is museum-worthy? i mean, i know the answer already ...

>Loomis:
painted dull conservative family portraits
>Leyendecker:
cigarette ads, emblems and gay horse jockeys.
>Rockwell:
American dream bs and way too many sus kids drawings

literally all of them are either illustrators for commercials or printing related jobs. so you guys rather learn from wage slaves than studying real artists like DaVinci? got it.

>>7110680
>taste arguments
>dismiss legends in the field of illustration
:/
would be curious to see your work. Leonardo was a wage salve too you know.

>>7110699
Leonardo was writing mirrored so the church wouldn't understand his anatomy studies.
Loomis, Leyedecker and all these shitheads doing ad illustrations are teaching exactly that: ad illustrations. it's like writing in the sand. nobody will remember illustrators, even your shilled KJG and Ruan Jian and whatever their names are.

everybody on here is drawing porn, from teenager to veteran. you are obsessed with anatomically accurate drawings rather than ideas. none of this will stand the test of time.
it's just fucking sad how much you all waste the faintest amount of talent only to adopt a stylistic vocabulary that brings to originality or inventiveness to the table.

>>7110705
>brings to originality or inventiveness to the table.
meant to write "brings NO originality or inventiveness"

>>7110705
but even less will remember Kollwitz. I doubt even 0.0001 of anons know her work.

>>7110705
post your work now

>>7110713
>0.0001 of anons know her work
kids living with their parents aren't exactly a representative demographic in the art world you know

>>7110715
i won't :)

>>7110718
>the art world
(((the art world)))
>i won't :)
figures. describe it then? describe your best work

>>7110705
read Kollwitz history. She studied realism first, plaster casts and so forth, her teachers were german rockwells.

>>7110720
>german rockwells
larping hard. don't confuse legit art academia with newspaper ad illustrators.
to make a case, Rockwell, much like Loomis and Leyendecker, painted linear, conflict-free narratives: Loomis' happy family dinner, Leyendecker's hundreds of sportsmen in sportsgear, Rockwell is pretty much the same stuff as Loomis ....
none of this stuff sticks. it's like caricatures or cartoons. it's funny, you get it within seconds and it doesn't rattle the cage of your feeble mind too much.
the works they produced "professionally" outside of their teaching material has no worth other than archival interests of seeing what the aesthetic of advertisements were back then.

what is the point of making a "good" drawing, if the results are so damn sovlless?

all I see on /ic/ is anons who want to get gewd at this or that technical aspect. none of these threads EVER discuss ideas and concepts.

>>7110728
>larping hard. don't confuse legit art academia with newspaper ad illustrators.
I meant in terms of accuracy, her teacher Karl Stauffer-Bern is like a german rockwell, just continuing that thread.
>none of these threads EVER discuss ideas and concepts.
I'm always open to that, I asked you to discuss your art without posting it but you failed to do that so...
Kollwitz suffered greatly, that impacted her art style and subject matter, giving it sovl. I've yet to suffer much in life, I had a sheltered childhood and live in a very peaceful country, maybe I'll make some Sovl once people I love start dying off.

>>7110740
don't worry, conflict and trouble will find you. i don't even wish that upon you, it's just bound to happen.

i won't discuss my art. here's as much as i will say. i have a grant and i have a career in art. my work generates income and gets me stipends, grants and residencies. one example is a bronze sculpture i made that received 2K funding to make and i got to keep it. it was cast by a professional using my design. i work in different media, depending on the underlying idea and what it needs to make a point.

i hate the ad industry passionately and i strongly believe its clouding and numbing our senses. we've learned to accept it like living with mosquitos in summer nights, but i like to imagine the world being like Sao Paolo, completely rid of ads in public.

>>7110740
don't worry, conflict and trouble will find you. i don't even wish that upon you, it's just bound to happen.

i won't discuss my art. here's as much as i will say. got a degree in art and i have an active career. my work generates income and gets me stipends, grants and residencies (made it so to say). one example is a bronze sculpture i made that received 2K funding to make and i got to keep it. it was cast by a professional using my design. i work in different media, depending on the underlying idea and what it needs to make a point.

i hate the ad industry passionately and i strongly believe its clouding and numbing our senses. we've learned to accept it like living with mosquitos in summer nights, but i like to imagine the world being like Sao Paolo, completely rid of ads in public.

>>7110756
Must be nice living in Norway where funding exists for artists like you. Here we only give money to artists who are "oppressed".

>>7110774
most European countries have art funding options, federal and national, sometimes even cities, no just Norway (I dunno much about Norwegian options there).
I know there is no funding whatsoever in the US, which is why most US artists are so commercially oriented (better say: corrupted).

>>7110789
Norway is the most generous I hear.

>>7110794
*because there are less artists, more money per artist

>>7110794
but unless you are a refugee, it's extremely hard to get citizenship there. plus living is fucking expensive and people are the worst introverts in the world. so if you like a little bit of human interaction once or twice a year, Norsk isn't for you.

>>7110799
sounds like a recipe for suffereing, thus good art eh?

>>7110806
i wouldn't be so sure. if you run out of money just because you need to buy food, there's no fun in that really. and if you don't like to eat fish everyday, it's not a good place to be.

but i guess being in trouble and suffering is "good for art". my most productive phases have always been at times when i was fucking close to going crazy from trying to fix shit in my life or getting punched in the gut by the consequences of something i fucked up.

>>7110817
>but i guess being in trouble and suffering is "good for art".
it seems to be. Maybe I should try to express my feeling of my pulled muscle in my back(I lifted my storage container of old filled sketchbooks, it's over 50kg...)

>>7110487
pristine. mine looks a wreck.(soft cover complete guide)

>>7110481
>>7110486
>>7110525
protip: just draw heavier women and you can be less accurate with muscle/bone anatomy

>>7109598
Bridgman actually did illustrations for a book called "The Female Form," which was written by a photographer named Ben Pinchot. It's more a photography book, though.

>>7109598
John H. Vanderpoel. Bridgman even wrote the foreword to Vanderpoel's book!

Copy Bridgwoman twice

>>7110926
i think that's it for now; hope you have enjoyed Funbags With A Pencil

>>7110740
Many creators with "soulful" works are people who live quite regular lives and have normal upbringings. To paraphrase someone, great artists make great art. There are plenty of people who suffered far worse than (insert tortured artist here, like Van Gogh) who couldn't have made the art that artist did.

>>7110680
god i can smell the leftist art hoe cunt in you from miles away. keep coping with your art degree and shitty "SOVL" drawings, they will never amount to a 1/100th of the shittiest loomis or leyendecker scribble

>>7111143
I agree with that, I have made soulful images in others opinions. It does seem to be a trend though, that the heaviest hitting works are by artists who were hit the hardest. (not to say soul must mean le sad/dark images)

>>7110756
Are you saying we shouldn't do Loomis?

>>7110926
Post ur book bro

>>7111145
all the so called "artists" on /ic/ including the sticky recommendations are quite literally the "those who can't do, teach" type of artists. as I said, none of them have any significance in art circles, that is, is contemporary art and "free" art existing outside of commercial use.

it's legit to get a few ideas from them if you want to draw comics and cartoons. but literally none of them deal with any topics beyond pure decoration, illustration for a certain commercial use or anaytical studies.

the result being that most anons posting here have developed no instict for image composition and weight distribution using contrast, negative space and planning the composition beforehand during sketching.

it's ultimately detrimental to anyones skillset to exclusively learn from these low-success commercial artist whose intention was mainly to sell books on their "teachings", which in itself is an interesting phenomenon. they didn't care if any of it actually helps young artists. it's the same strategy that hardcore capitalists employ: incentivize the purchase - what happens after the customer leaves the shop doesn't matter.

>>7111185
nice deflection, talentless tard
>no instict for image composition and weight distribution using contrast, negative space and planning the composition beforehand during sketching.
hurr durr why doesn't the guy who teach anatomy and construction also teach me composition and value control, you hear how retard you sound?
>hardcore capitalists
ah there it is again, i love applying my mental illness bias to art that i hate too!
Kill yourself, and fuck outta here with your reddit spacing

personne ici ne tient tant que ça à avoir une anatomie parfaite et réaliste, ils veulent juste les bases, les études de Da vinci et michelangelo étaient bien plus sérieuses et rigoureuses que celles postées sur /ic/ et leurs figures étaient bien plus "réalistes" et tryhard que toutes celles dessinées ici lol

>>7110509
>>7110523
>>7110603
>>7110680
>>7110705
>>7110728
>>7110756
>>7110789
>>7111148
>>7111185
Can you stop shitting up the threads? Your drawings are dogshit btw, can't even draw a foot right in perspective.
>>7095708
>>7100411

>>7111232
lmao 10+ years exp drawing for that, i've seen begs draw better in 2 years

>>7111178
if you want to draw porn, comics, cartoons, concept art, go ahead and do loomis.
if you want to be an "artist"-artist, loomis is poison

>>7111193
>reddit spacing.
yeah i know you guys hate making paragraphs to seperate topics. and then you go "TL;DR" lol
i know it hurts like hell someone calls bullshit on the methods that are shilled on /ic/. truth is, you become a copy of copy of a copy. like disney animators, having your own style is undesirable. you need to and are expected to draw the same shit everyone else draws. you have a goal in sight, maybe someday being like one of these chinks, shitting out one fantasy cloud and dragon pretty pixel picture after another. no trace will be left of KJG and all the rest, except for their trained models in some gAI. a sad outlook, but this is really what you've settled for

i get that you are mad, and you should be.

>>7111232
>can't even draw a foot right in perspective.
do me a better one than, big mouth.
you have zero original ideas and all you dream of is drawing big tiddies and fetish bs for cash. i wouldn't want to switch places with you. accuracy is no criteria for the appeal of a work. just look at "teh best" Loomis sketches. they are accurate and photorealistic, but absolutely bland and leave no trace whatsoever.

>>7111232
>Can you stop shitting up the threads
I'll stick aroung just for you bae

>>7111255
you lack basic fundamental skills, you can't be bothered to learn basic perspective, anatomy and construction and then shit on them calling them snake oil and shit, you call them soulless and then call your own work original, moving and that it's just your style despite drawing for 10+ years, your THE definition of the dunning kruger.
Please sniff your own "artist"-artist farts on your own but don't talk shit and lead astray people that want to better their art.

>>7111253
you sound so bitter dude, doubt you even enjoy drawing

>>7111232
AHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHH HOLY FUCK!!
why are tradfucks like this?? every single time, without fail, literally every one of these are just piss poor copies of boring crap no one gives a fuck about
frazetta would absolutely shit on this worthless atelier faggot

>>7111232
lmao

>>7111253
Separate* gg

Btw, what is an artist artist? Some sort of academic/reinaissance artist?

>>7111232
glad you wasted quite some time out of your day to autistically backtrace my posts ;) ... time that you could have spent improving on your weak cartoon drawing skills >>7100378 >>7100325
you got one (You) wrong though. but it's good to know that i'm haunting your thoughts now.

>>7111261
>>7111267
>>7111357
>>7111384
glad you crabs are mad af. while i'm sitting here, 2024 and just opened my first exhibition for this year.
but yeah, of course i am deeply hurt by the judgement of porn and fetish drawing BridgmanLoomisRockwell-cucks. my hurt feefees will never recover from that

>>7111482
next level material that begs have zero chance to get into

>>7111267
>you sound so bitter dude, doubt you even enjoy drawing
I do enjoy drawing and painting a lot. unlike a buddy of mine who is raging hard everyday since dall-E came along. he went through all the books, Loomis, Bridgeman, Rockwell, spent thousands of $ on "private live" video classes with "experts". he stopped uploading works and he's fucking sperging out when you want to talk to him about generative AI. the guy, much like you and many other anons, realized he went down the wrong road and there's no money in that in the next few years. superfluous skills.
you are the new Macromedia Flash and boom, suddely your whole digital painting careers are going down the drain. lmao

#BridgmanLoomisCopeSeethe

>>7110496
You get to struggle holding it open as you try to copy out of it

>>7111504
Genuinely curious on your point of view AcademicAnon because I'd like to take the proper direction as best I could.

You're saying Loomis is poison aka counterproductive if someone wants to go "next level"; a level unattainble by begs. Firstly, if a level is unattainable by begs, who is it attainable by? Everyone who isn't an artist is a beg. Are you trying to say that people are just born as artist artists?

Next, how exactly is learning figure construction from Loomis counter productive to reaching this "unattainable next level" ? Couldn't one do Loomis figure construction and then (or simultaneously) study "next level art" ???

Lastly, do you consider yourself as someone who creates "next level material" ?

Again, not tryna fight. Just want to understand

>>7111232
Lel btfo

>>7111504
>just opened my first exhibition for this year.
the larp on this faggot, or women more likely

>talking and taking advice from an art whore
do you guys want to release "paintings" with your period blood on it or something?
And im pretty sure it's just the anti-construction schizo that posts in every thread.

Alr no response. I'll assume academic anon was a crab

>>7109858
ok you got me this time

AI is one of the most improved artists of our time. Even with no creativity, no genuine understanding, no fundies, it is able to generate images with minimal effort. How did it do this? By doing the machine equivalent of copies and pattern recognition. Perhaps one could learn from that. Once you build up your hand-eye coordination and ability to draw what you see to a reasonable level, start copying. As much as you can from as many sources as you can, training your personal LoRA by increasing the volume of copies of work that you like and wish to emulate. But copy everything, because everything adds to your dataset. Once you've done that and become comfortable with drawing, go back and add in fundamentals to give you a leg up on the machine, allowing you to create works with more originality and creativity by applying the fundamentals to your mental dataset

>>7112324
Copying what you see is a lot easier if you know fundamentals, i.e. you can "see through" what you are seeing, understanding shapes in three dimensional space. Otherwise you've merely memorized snapshots of something and don't actually intuit a thing seen from the front and seen from the side are the same thing, you just have front and side as totally different concepts. And that's what the robot does, it doesn't "know" what it's doing it just makes guesses based on secret punjabi sauce, which is why you get hands with six fingers or hair that turns into clothing, because it doesn't know anything it just guesses

>>7110646
>Reilly
I was sincerely hoping that if there's a thread about copying illustrations from learn-to-draw books that someone would mention him thank you anon.
>>7110603
name another glossary from 1940 emphasizing the motor and architectural qualities of the figure, complete with ideally isolated groups to show relationship and interdependence from one body part to the next.
He was loved and admired by his students for seeming to have turned on a light-bulb for them.
>Kimon Nicolaides
with all these teachers you're going to hear about them from a biased group of people called "students that loved their teacher." and even with nicolaides like, name another book for me from 1970(betty edwards publishes after the natural way to draw) that lays out a drawing course whose goal is bridge an experiential connection between your sensory experience and basic act of mark-making.

we STILL don't really understand how people do stuff. These books are just containers of information that can *possibly* facilitate some internal transformation that different people have experienced, in some cases entire classrooms and in some cases teachers that built a part of their standard for teaching based on their teachers.

>>7110523
Ooo I always wondered where Monica cook got inspiration for pic rel.

>>7112329
>guesses based on secret punjabi sauce, which is why you get hands with six fingers
lol. yeah another thing AI has in common with pajeets i guess. producing monstrosities with extra limbs, much like what happens in the slums in pajeetland, because rape-empregnated girls are constantly infecting themselves with feces and the septic nightmare that is living day to day.

>>7110941
Based vanderpoel enjoyer

>>7111568
>larp
is it hard for you to imagine that actual artists have exhibitions?

>>7111611
>anti-construction schizo
i'm not entirely anti-construction actually. my entire point is that you first need to make some babysteps on your own, discovering your own abilities, your preferences, making mistakes. not this process:
>"hm, i'm sorta interested in drawing! what do i do now?"
>copy Bridgman, copy Loomis, eat Prokos video tutorial cumloads ...
that leads to Pawells, blocking and fucking up your own developement. it's just as important to build your critical eye for your own work and learning to see and correct mistakes. when you trace, you learn absolutely nothing. the outcome is somewhat representable, but you learn jack shit.

i'll say it again. most of you shitforbrains are sour because that is exactly how you approached this whole thing. and maybe now you realize that your style is indistinct of all the shit that is circulating the web these days. so here i come along, questioning all the sticky recommendations, the Loomis shillers, the endless book selling and video tutorial courses that some of you saved up money for and spent hoping that it will magically take you to another level and of course you are fucking mad af. i get it. and i will still question that path you all advocate so blindly.
tracing and drawabox will always and forever be crutches. they are needed and legitimate in comic and illustration fields, but they have the potential to block your intrinsic understanding of anatomy, shape, imagination and may damage your style.

>>7112299
nah i'm just busy and working all day mf

>>7109598
>we STILL don't really understand how people do stuff. These books are just containers of information that can *possibly* facilitate some internal transformation that different people have experienced, in some cases entire classrooms and in some cases teachers that built a part of their standard for teaching based on their teachers.
based opinion. but that's also where the danger in misconception lies. it is no help to COPY someone elses learning process.

>>7112476
ok, you're gonna respond then?

holy mother of schizoprenia

>>7113567
If you are not schizophrenic you are automatically ngmi

>>7111529
my crusade here is meaningless really, as most kids on /ic/ just want to draw tits and dicks slipping into dripping orifices in fisheye perspective (prompt material).
about the Morandi thing. of course everyone starts out as a beg, except for idiot savants. "Everyone who isn't an artist is a beg"duh.
> how exactly is learning figure construction from Loomis counter productive
--> >>7112476

so, this is for trad fellows and people who are interested in finding a style and art making of their own. if you are content with becoming a comic artist, illustrator or commercial artist for ads, concept art, commissions, don't bother:
I don't call my stuff "next level material" bc that is vain. all i'm going for is staying true to my principles, doing only and exclusively what i'm interested in and following my instinct. if what i do is fun, but still challenging at the same time, i feel that I'm on the right path. i'm always open to experimentation and furthering my skills with materials i can work with. e.g. i've abandoned acrylics, as i think they are dull, disgusting (plastic) and way too opaque to work in layers. it's really very important to find the right materials for your methods and what you feel comfortable with.
i believe that this is something that digital painting lacks entirely. on the one hand, you do not produce any physical art at all, you're just pushing pixels around with a plastic stick and board. all the fancy prints that the so called "pros" make are still not "originals", they are mere reproductions. the original artworks are purely digital and will always be digital. the most grotesque strategy in that sense is the many ways digital presets try to emulate real materials, brush strokes, oil paint, watercolor, pencils or whatnot. it is far more interesting when brush presets have characteristic that are exclusive to digital media, like this anon in picrel uses. i think that's the chance when digital can emancipate itself from its trad roots

>>7111504
gotta be honest those cartoon sketches are infinitely more appealing than the bland shit that i think is yours

>>7113701
a lot of words and not a lot of meaning

>>7109598
My first Brigeman

>>7114863
Great job anon