Is there anyone on /ic/ who didn't start out with a loomis or ect book? Sort of just pieced it together yourself?

File: 153 KB, 590x804, 529.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat May 3 11:57:45 2014 No.1720103 [Reply] [Original]

Is there anyone on /ic/ who didn't start out with a loomis or ect book? Sort of just pieced it together yourself?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 3 12:01:05 2014 No.1720106 I've never read loomis or how to books or vipplu. I learned to draw and paint by attending life drawing classes once every week and by doing model studies every other week.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 3 12:05:24 2014 No.1720111 >>1720106 >learned to draw What do you mean by this?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 3 13:06:29 2014 No.1720146 >>1720103 I started drawing by myself with no books or teachers at all, just drawing the things I saw and trying to copy drawings I like. I read loommis for the first time about one year ago and it helped me a lot, wish I had started with it.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 3 13:16:06 2014 No.1720151 File: 257 KB, 640x640, 1393865833779.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1720103 I didn't start with loomis I started with a white paper and a pencil

Anonymous Sat May 3 13:31:07 2014 No.1720162

>>1720111
you just try to draw.
try to think about how drawing works, and try to do it better over time. it's really the same as any other craft, even sports. can't get the ball into the basket? think about it a bit, adjust yourself and try again.

i think beginners misunderstand the loomis thing too much.
just draw a lot. and try to draw better and more complicated things every time. push yourself.
the best advice i ever got was to get a sketchbook and draw a lot. i think i was pretty lucky to stuimble upon that early. if i tried to go right into anatomy or any other kind of thing, i may have had a much worse start.

Anonymous Sat May 3 13:53:30 2014 No.1720173

I did and I took years to get anywhere. Once I finally did start life drawing classes the teacher was not a good draughtsman himself and would have us do a bunch of gimmicky shit rather than teaching us how to draw.
Once I eventually found out what the good resources were(Vilppu mainly), I really appreciated them and took my time learning the stuff properly, and learned much faster.
I think too many kids download all the PDFs, and just flick through them or copy the diagrams without learning anything.
I think it's possible to learn to draw without any learning resources, but you'd have to be eternally patient because you wouldn't know WHY your drawings don't look how you want. And it'd take much longer. It would be foolish because you have access to the best resources in the world literally at your fingertips this second

Anonymous Tue May 6 04:19:07 2014 No.1722373

>>1720103
I picked up drawing as a kid, never copied from books, art class in elementary/high school was mediocre at best, mostly crayons and shit. I've pretty much taught my self, not that by any standards I'm good. I kind of enjoy trying to perfect my 'skill' by trial and error, lately I've had trouble drawing realistic animal eyes, so I've gazed over photos, real live animals and other people's drawings to piece together an idea or image to mentally reference.

I honestly don't know, I don't buy into that whole art school thing, if you got it, if you got drive and willingness to learn, to accept mistakes and try to fix them, than that's all there is to it. Style and what you draw should come natural, rather than spitting out regurgitated ideas and styles that are taught to you. Do what feels natural to you and you can't be wrong.

But what would I know? I've only experienced one side of the situation. You have to chose what you think is best for yourself.

I was a poor kid, I wasn't given the supplies or books, maybe I'd be a famous artist by now if I had, it's impossible to know.

TLDR
It's probably more satisfying knowing you're self made, but you may learn faster from books/websites.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 04:36:15 2014 No.1722374 >>1720103 me, and actually got a lot of hate for it. see >>1719913 people are sooooo sensitive when you tell them that all they do is copy the work somebody else did all their life because you're just lazy/incompetent.

Anonymous Tue May 6 04:49:59 2014 No.1722379

>>1722374
Shit mate, that's the price for saying something against the mainstream. That's like going on gif and saying you don't like porn, being spoon fed is ic's version of that.
inb4 they start raging here.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, etc.

I'm glad I'm not alone as far as being self taught goes. One day we'll show them, when their regurgitated drawings are forgotten and our own original styles are coveted.

>inb4 delusions of grandeur

Anonymous Tue May 6 04:54:03 2014 No.1722380

At the begining I did... Huge mistake, I've only been "formally studying" for the last two years, and my advances are way greater than the five I did on "my own". To my defense, at the time (I was fourteen) I didn't have access to any GOOD art course or books and didn't know what to search for, but stil... I just thank the internet for guiding me in my art journey, amen.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 04:54:07 2014 No.1722381 >>1722373 yeah, exactly this. there is no greater feeling than doing things alone, and a hundred times better than people who follow books religiously, and which in the end can't do shit.

Anonymous Tue May 6 05:01:12 2014 No.1722384

>>1722379
haha, yeah, but don't worry, THIS >>1721082 is what I did just for them in literally 5-10 mins, and what took me more time was the writing, they can't even do easy shit like that in an hour. I had a good laugh.

just let them bark about the "feeeel" of vilppu.

Anonymous Tue May 6 05:12:23 2014 No.1722387

>>1722384
When it comes down to it, I'd say just do what makes you proud.

on a side not, you're far better at drawing than I am. I couldn't draw a human to save my life, I stick to realistic animals. At least if i make a mistake I can blame it on fur or a battle scar. Like Bob Ross says, we don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.

I don't know why the thought of somebody doing something for themselves rustles them so.

Keep up the good work, though.

Anonymous Tue May 6 05:12:26 2014 No.1722388

>>1722379
>Implying true style doesn't develop after mastering fundamentals, like perspective and light
>Implying learning these concepts from a book in a well done manner is better than mucking around, and getting an approximation of them (unless you seriously did a bunch of physics work on perspective, and dissected bodies to find proportion and anatomy
>implying you're more hardcore for not taking advantage of resources
>implying re-inventing the wheel means you're better

uhhuh

Anonymous Tue May 6 05:18:16 2014 No.1722392

>>1722388
>stealing or copying somebody's style= having style
>thinking light and shadows, perspective etc are hard to comprehend
><never claimed to be hard core, you're simply resorting to attempted insults because you lack mental originality too
>not re-inventing anything (art and wheels aren't even comparable no matter how smart you think your simile is) simply forging my own style rather than leeching off of somebody else= bad
>being this narrow minded and not accepting that some people WORK to reach their goals, rather than being spoonfed

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 05:19:28 2014 No.1722393 >>1722388 style develops at the same time as your skill, not at the end

Anonymous Tue May 6 05:25:25 2014 No.1722395

>>1722392
>Because that's totally what I said
>Implying you truly understand shadow/light on a physics level, not just an approximation you've learned from sources, same with perspective.
>ONE DAY WE WILL SHOW THEM lol why u insult so mad lol
>Because redoing all the work of finding proportions and tricks for perspective isn't retreating ground pretty well laid out already. These are objective things, how they work in real life, not style.
>Implying learning from a source=being spoonfed

Wow I guess everyone who doesn't figure out all of trig by themselves, and finding all the proofs without any help is just bad at maths lol.

I'm not debating if you worked hard or not. I'm sure you did, but have you ever heard the expression "work smarter, not harder"?

Anonymous Tue May 6 05:29:35 2014 No.1722398

>>1722395
There's a difference between work and art. If all art is to you is: mass produce images for money, then no fucking big wonder this is how you think.
Learning math and art are nothing alike, how can you possibly be so dense?
Art is freedom, there is not wrong way to do anything unless you aren't proud of it, in that case, you learn to fix it.
Math is the opposite, rigid rules, and there is only one right answer.
Maybe you don't understand what art is...
Maybe that's why you're confusing it with math and wheels.

Anonymous Tue May 6 05:34:51 2014 No.1722402

>>1722398
Are you implying it isn't work to improve in art? I draw as a hobby, not as a profession. You need maths in order to render perspective and shadows in a realistic way, unless of course, you use techniques developed by other artists who have DONE this work.

It's fairly obvious you've never done any high level maths if you think there is no freedom in how you do things. There is one right anwser, but about a million ways to get it.

If you really don't think the rules of perspective, light, movement, etc (which are all governed by math and physics) apply to figure drawing, or still life, or just about all representational art, then I don't even know what to tell you. You think you understand it on a more fundamental level because you didn't read any books, and "felt it out yourself", but all you've done is an emulation of reality, you know that something "looks right", but not why that's the case.

Anonymous Tue May 6 05:35:34 2014 No.1722403
File: 28 KB, 458x582, Leonardo+da+Vinci+-+Head+Measured+and+Horsemen+.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1722388
Implying true style doesn't develop after mastering fundamentals, like perspective and light
>following all the stylisized consigns of somebody else's work will develop your style somehow.
>implying people need books for perspective and light
Implying learning these concepts from a book in a well done manner is better than mucking around, and getting an approximation of them (unless you seriously did a bunch of physics work on perspective, and dissected bodies to find proportion and anatomy.
>I'm too lazy to take a bunch of photos from different bodies and do my work alone like a big kid, I need mr.teacher to hold my hand so I can write properly.
implying you're more hardcore for not taking advantage of resources.
>"why would I need to work if someone already did the work for me to copy hurr?"
implying re-inventing the wheel means you're better
>nobody is re-inventing anything, it always has been like this, great artists work by themselves, learn things from personal experience over time, or hardcore observation (da-vinci etc)

>muh loomis balls, muh vilppu feel, muh art.

Anonymous Tue May 6 05:43:11 2014 No.1722407

>>1722402
You must be blind to think a person can't draw shadow because they don't know maths. See, us humans, we have these things on the front of our face, called eyes, and we use them to see. It's as simple as drawing as what see. If you're drawing something imaginary, then you decide before you start shading, where is the light coming from.
I draw because I enjoy art, because paper holds a freedom that is unrivaled in life. If all art/drawing is to you is math and work, then you're doing it wrong.

And about this whole turd here
>Are you implying it isn't work to improve in art? I draw as a hobby, not as a profession. You need maths in order to render perspective and shadows in a realistic way, unless of course, you use techniques developed by other artists who have DONE this work.

Perhaps I have used a method somebody else has, but I didn't copy it nor learn it from them, I learned by what my eyes find aesthetically pleasing. So if it's the same technique, which is possible for human minds are quite similar and it's more unlikely that I don't have something in common, so what? I didn't steal it, copy it, borrow it, leech from it, etc. I manufactured it in my own way/time frame/methods.

There's a major difference between willingly plagiarizing and accidentally having the same idea.

Anonymous Tue May 6 05:43:24 2014 No.1722408

>>1722403
Holy hell that is a pain to read.

Most good art books will teach you how to render something using the rules of reality, not their particular style. Taking a loomis book as an example, furthermore how he teaches the head, he's trying to teach you to think of it as a 3d object, and use perspective to arrange it. He's showing you an easy approximation of the skull, that's a good base to build off of. You can't teach someone to draw a real skull right off the bat, because they will be wayyy to overwhelmed. It's not about apeing the style at all.

Yes, you do need books for perspective and light. Do you understand how complicated perspective is? Do you know how easily your eye can be tricked? You could probably make an entire scientific career about how the human eye sees depth and perspective.

Why use photos? That's cheating. Go out and cut open cadavers to learn anatomy and proportion. You think the old masters had photos? Pah.

Why do I need to do work that people already figured out? You're mocking me for this? So I assume you have a chip fab in your garage and made your computer right? You also designed TCP/IP so you can talk to me?

Yep, I'm sure Da vinci never had anyone teach him. Michelangelo never took any apprenticeships... There is a time for individual study, but if you think that's square one, I feel bad for you.

Anonymous Tue May 6 05:45:47 2014 No.1722411

>>1722402
I don't think you understand what being an artist is. almost nobody on /ic/ does anyway.

as for ligh and perspective, YOU DO NOT NEED A BOOK, those are not fundamentals, they are laws you need to apply. literally one picture will explain everything about it.

we are not talking about that in the previous posts anyway. stop.

Anonymous Tue May 6 05:45:58 2014 No.1722412

>>1722407
Yes, we all know there are no things like optical illusions, and once you see something, it's easy to draw it! That's why no one ever has problems with perspective, ever, unless they're blind!

You really think learning the basic rules of reality is plagiarizing? What? Are you serious?

Anonymous Tue May 6 05:48:02 2014 No.1722413

>>1722411
Light, perspective, and proportion/anatomy are the things people learn from those books, as well as how to think about a drawing (how to try to transfer a 3d thing onto a 2d plane). Unless they're reading "how to draw manga" books, I doubt people are trying to ape the style specifically, more learning the rules. You really think one picture will explain everything about perspective?

Anonymous Tue May 6 05:50:57 2014 No.1722419

>>1722412
>learning = copying step by step to completely emulate another's work

Seriously, I have no trouble at all seeing perspectives, sure when I was a little kiddy I couldn't draw it right, but as you grow and become more skilled things fall into place, like from stick figure to self portrait, you need a foundation. That foundation, however is easily learned, simply by comparing photos, real life and your own drawings, you don't need to coddle at the bosom of somebody famous to learn common sense. Bigger = closer, smaller = farther away.
I mean fucksake, even 6 year olds know that.

Anonymous Tue May 6 05:55:03 2014 No.1722424

>>1722419
Yes, I totally said that learning is copying to emulate someone's work. I haven't been arguing this whole time about basic rules that all of reality follows.

You really think that's all there is to perspective, bigger/smaller? Not perpendicular angles, how to determine where something sits on the horizon/plane, how you would accurately draw a stack of books or letters at different levels, stairs, varying building sizes. How do you reconcile a smaller thing being closer, and a bigger thing being closer without it looking off?

These are all things you can either force yourself into sort of figuring it out by drawing, learn via maths and physics truly understanding, or the third option is knowing how to render it, using techniques people who did the former learned. There is no advantage to the first. None. Except for 1337 points (I'm just like Da Vinci! He never had anyone teach him anything!)

Anonymous Tue May 6 06:02:41 2014 No.1722435

>>1722424
Or go about it your way and understand only the fundamentals and not the art itself. You don't need a fucking grid every time you want to sketch a kitty cat. You don't need advanced calculus to know the shadow falls on the opposite side that light is coming from.
You think by attempting to over complicate a simple form of expression than some how you're a better man than I.
The facts are simple, you don't understand what art is, so you try to bring down people who do. You think, lol some teacher/book taught me art math so I'm better than you.
That's not how it works, though, skill and talent are the determining factor, not being able to spew out your special snowflake bullshit. Great, you were privileged as a kid, good for you. I'm still a better artist, I still know more about art than you. And your books can't change that.

Anonymous Tue May 6 06:04:02 2014 No.1722436
File: 42 KB, 403x355, perspective_drawing1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1722408
my god, you really REALLY don't know what being an artist means in the end huh.
>Do you understand how complicated perspective is? Do you know how easily your eye can be tricked?
pic related, ARG muh eyes 2 hard 2 understand. as I said, one page will explain it. I'm not talking about fucking M.C. Escher here.
>Why use photos? That's cheating. Go out and cut open cadavers to learn anatomy and proportion. You think the old masters had photos?
would GLADLY do it...If I was in the fucking renaissance era, ffs, is that it? old artists clearly had no photos, camera's didn't exist. your point ?

and yes, I did ALL my proportions alone, bodies, face all of it.

>Why do I need to do work that people already figured out? You're mocking me for this? So I assume you have a chip fab in your garage and made your computer right?
is this really your argument ? I never ever claimed being an engeneer, while you claim to kow what being an artist is. let'sz stop here.

I don't understand your last phrase, but anyway, why would you feel bad for me ? I'm doing GREAT, better than most people who worked for years while I started just a year ago. you should feel good for me and try to do the same anon.

Anonymous Tue May 6 06:06:22 2014 No.1722442

>>1722435
I'm overcomplicating it? So, just for reference, when you wanna say "my art is more pure because I never learned anything from a book", that's awesome, but when I say "well, actually learning how something works helps your art", that's bad.

So I guess Da Vinci was overcomplicating when he dissected cadavers? "Geez you don't need to know where the insertion points of the glutes are when you just wanna draw a person god!"

I'm not debating me vs you in terms of an artist, I'm debating the merit of your method. You probably are a better artist than me, so what? Does that mean your method was better? I draw very rarely, barely as a hobby. You think pedagogy is equal to stealing, which is just so wrong it boggles my mind.

Anonymous Tue May 6 06:10:04 2014 No.1722450

>>1722436
Yes, that picture really shows off how perspective applies to the figure, how to foreshorten, and everything else I said.

I would gladly not use any books... If I lived in a time before the printing press. Same argument. Da Vinci was breaking the law to do it, so go do it.

I never claimed I knew what "being and artist is", I'm saying the method you're using (or lack of one, as the case may be) isn't the most efficient, but you're using it because it makes you feel like your art is more "pure" and "artistic". It's nonsense.

I'm glad you're happy with your work anon, I really am. I'm just trying to make you understand that learning from a book or teacher doesn't mean you're "cheating" or "stealing someone's style". You're merely taking advantage of resources available. Like you do when you look at references.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 06:14:48 2014 No.1722454 >>1722450 Oh, in regards to my last phrase. I'm saying even Michelangelo and Da Vinci had people teach them things. They weren't all self study. It's a romantic notion that it was all 100% them from day 1, but it isn't the reality.

Anonymous Tue May 6 06:15:30 2014 No.1722455

>>1722442
I guess I have a better method, I'll go and learn about photonic interference and interacion with objects on an atomic scale. I'll then take into consideration other type of light sources and study them the same way. THEN and only then will I be able to draw a proper shadow.

Light and perspective are LAWS. you do not need to study it's deep physics to understand them. when you hear a law that says "do not kill other people" you don't ask why, you personally know it's wrong.

Anonymous Tue May 6 06:18:29 2014 No.1722459

>>1722455
No anon, because I'm saying study them on a macro scale, not a subatomic scale. I think you know the obvious difference, and you're just being obtuse.

First of all, a mathematical law, and a legal law are totally different, so that's a bad comparison. Second of all, it's not just 1 law, there are many, all of which can interact with each other. Understanding them makes you a better artist.

Anonymous Tue May 6 06:22:15 2014 No.1722461
File: 38 KB, 309x452, GRAYSANATOMYBOOKCOVER.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1722442
I learn as I draw, sure it may take longer than just copying from a book, but yeah, I've gotten my hands bloody to learn how things work.
I do a little work as a taxidermist. I've skinned everything from cats, squirrels and foxes to deer. And implementing that with what I've read from my medical books, gray's anatomy etc, I have a pretty good idea how things work. You don't need math, you don't need a coach. You only need the strive to create and to learn, to accept your mistakes in stride and learn how to fix them.
Learning how something works is really as easy as observing, I didn't need to skin or dissect animals to know legs bend at so and so point and not the other way. It doesn't need to be over complicated with numbers or grids or bullshit. That's not what art is.

And it doesn't benefit you in the end unless your entire point was to be "na na na I'm better than you"
If it makes you happy to think you're better, then yeah congrats. You're still unoriginal and you still don't understand what art is.
I haven't gotten the chance to even look at all this loomis/vlpu-whatever bullcrap, probably just kindergarten level math. Maybe I should look it over so I can beat you at your own game.

Anonymous Tue May 6 06:24:51 2014 No.1722463

>>1722461
So art books are bad.. .But medical textbooks are fine? Are you serious? If it doesn't need to be so complicated, and you can just look and see, why use the textbooks at all?

I flat out said you're a better artist, I don't really care. The point isn't to say "hahah I'm better" only "You're using a method that is inefficient on a poorly thought out principle".

Anonymous Tue May 6 06:27:04 2014 No.1722465
File: 73 KB, 500x464, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Didn't read the thread. From a glance I assume you guys are arguing over the need to read books versus figuring stuff out yourself.

Yes, you do need to read books to aquire base knowledge. Figuring stuff for yourself is a waste of your time on earth. Why do you think early medieval art looks so stiff and has basically construction? Because people were figuring stuff out. It's not a matter of months, years, or a lifetime. What you read in the books, even the 120 pages of loomis on how to do basic perspective and light is not something he made up in a year. It's a compilation of knowledge that artists since the dawn of time were figuring out through the generations. Book is your dad who teaches you how to use the instruments. You figure out what to use them on and how. Book is adobe photoshop manual that teaches you what all those individual tools do. You figure out where and how to use them. Book is the tutorial to the interface of a grand strategy. You figure out how you want to rule your realm in that strategy with that interface. Not reading a book is like wanting to restore an old car without reading the manual and blueprints of said car, wanting to figure it out yourself.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 06:27:32 2014 No.1722466 File: 418 KB, 803x1661, img623.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I just drew nude models. Books don't teach you much.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 06:29:13 2014 No.1722467 >>1722461 >probably kindergartner level math, maybe I should take a look so I can beat you at your own game tips fedora

Anonymous Tue May 6 06:29:45 2014 No.1722468
File: 286 KB, 1068x1387, 50e4c9b1afa96f6fb8000191.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1722450
I actually never studied perspective, then why can I perfectly forshorten things at my will ? with it looking realistinc and not dispropotionate. why ? because I have something called a brain, and that brain works. I can see what a muscle would look like If I rotate it, not that hard of a thing. I mean...can you even draw a cube ?

>someone broke the law to get something he couldn't get legally and could only get it that.
yeah, that was it, again, what's you point here.

>100m run, all athletes get on the line, start, one is using an american F16 jet to reach the line first. he wins. he did it. he won. he takes the cup. laughing and crying, he's happy of his own performance.pic related

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 06:29:56 2014 No.1722469 >>1722466 Good luck not knowing what goes on under the hood and what muscles/bones cause the body to be in the form it is. >>1722465 This guy gets it. You need to learn basic stuff to use it as skeleton for developing your own style and technique.

Anonymous Tue May 6 06:32:00 2014 No.1722471

I'm a beginner myself so I don't know how much my "experience" will help you, but...

I draw mostly as a hobby, because it's fun to do, I enjoy it. I've been drawing since I was a kid. Thing is, all I've been ever trying to do was draw my favorite characters or design my own. I never really pushed myself to study, learned VERY slowly how things work. (For example, years ago I used to draw the shoulders area waaay too wide/big, once I noticed that I started fixing my errors and since then I try my best to draw it somewhat correctly).

I'm looking at my sketchbooks now and all I see is characters in generic standing poses with some bored expressions. It looks ok for the most part, but it's boring, I'd imagine any artist that looked at my drawings would get bored after a few pages. It annoys me.

When I look at references I can get the gist of what I'm seeing but when I'm wrong it takes me a long time to realize why. I rarely try drawing perspective or anything too complicated because at the back of my head I'm bitching at myself about how wrong it's turning out and I can't fix it, I don't know how.

I truly wish I could have turned back time and see how terrible I was when I was a teen. I'm still terrible, obviously, but at least I want to learn how to get better now. Ordered a bunch of newbie books from Amazon and they'll be my new starting point. (Gonna use lots of ref pictures as well, by the way. Books can't show you everything).

tl;dr: I think a good book might be better and faster from learning how to do stuff on your own.

Anonymous Tue May 6 06:32:23 2014 No.1722472

I'm not the guy your responding to but can't help but comment.

>>1722461
>don't need
>don't need

You're right anon, no one needs anything to git gud. but most people git gud faster if they work in a community and have a coach and are learning things in addition to teaching themselves.

>I didn't need to skin or dissect animals to know legs bend at so and so point and not the other way

That's great, but by understanding the anatomy, doing dissections or learning skeletal structure, you find out what is and isn't possible with a certain animal. Straight observation on a surface level isn't good enough for this knowledge. Understanding how a shoulder joint works lets you understand what motions are and are not possible, without having to spend all the additional time "observing" that it would take for you to piece together that same information.

>you're still unoriginal and you still don't understand what art is.

art is subjective it's whatever the viewer wants it to be. the fact that you think there is a distinct and clear definition just points out that your arrogance is possibly clouding your thinking.

>it doesn't benefit you in the end

How are you capable of making this statement? You personally know what works and doesn't work for everyone on this board?

Anonymous Tue May 6 06:32:26 2014 No.1722473

>>1722468
Yes anon, your foreshortening is perfect. Also, all that time you used to figure it out couldn't have been spent on other things, or developing other skills. Good on you for wasting time remaking the wheel!

>art is a contest
>Using a book is like cheating!!
>My art is most pure!!

I guess Da Vinci and Michelangelo are cheaters, cause they were apprentices at one point.

Anonymous Tue May 6 06:35:41 2014 No.1722476

>>1722463
Implying looking at anatomical figures and copying stroke for stroke another's work is the same?
And honestly I hadn't bothered up until recently, my human figures were good already, I just wanted to verify a few things.
Maybe if I was tracing the book or legitimately copying the images and claiming them as my own, then that woulds be a valid argument.
Humans were never my strong suit, so
I was seeing if I could determine why. Not like at that time I had excess amounts of humans around me to try sketching, or I would have done it that way.

>skeletons = a finished work

I still had to do everything else on my own.
And uh, so far it seems my "principle" so far has not breached your thick skull.

To be completely fair, on a slightly different note here, human anatomy is completely useless to me, I draw aliens and animals. I just have a slight interest in human anatomy, and as far as drawing goes, I didn't spend enough time with the book that I got anything from it. So all in all, it was a useless experience as far as drawing goes.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 06:37:55 2014 No.1722479 >>1722476 You think the most use you get out of art books is copying stroke for stroke? You use it to learn concepts, it's not a trace book ffs. Just like an anatomy book, you're getting reference and ideas.

Anonymous Tue May 6 06:40:18 2014 No.1722480

>>1722473
your arguments are less and less convincing. who said I put a lot of time to figure it out ? didn't you understand it wasn't a question of time but just space.

>art is not a contest
>do not consider yourself an artist if you follow everything someone else says.
>yes, is it wrong ?

yeah sure.

Anonymous Tue May 6 06:43:17 2014 No.1722483

>>1722479
You looked around here lately? It's all copied straight out of the books. I'll be damned if more than half of it isn't traced.
You shouldn't rely on a single source for all of your "referencing" because then you will only know that one style, rather than developing your own. If you want to be spoon fed, then at least use a few different books with a variety of styles. But don't go around preaching like you're some fucking wizard on /x/ because loomis made you the chosen one.

Anonymous Tue May 6 06:43:25 2014 No.1722484

>>1722480
Your foreshortening may "look" perfect, but it probably isn't from a maths perspective. Learning from a source is almost ALWAYS faster than figuring it out yourself (unless the teacher is terrible). No one said it was impossible to git good without books, just the effort/reward ratio is terrible, and there's no real advantage to it.

Art is not a contest at all. Why would you think that?

Learning from someone=/= following everything they say. Or do you only listen to what your parents say?

Nope, all the tools you use? Someone else made them. Real artists make their own pencils/paints/brushes/software/etc You can play the purity game all day, really.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 06:45:01 2014 No.1722485 >>1722469 neither you nor I can name every muscle or bone in the human body. And that kinda knowledge is irrelevant to producing good art. You can understand movement and flow without being an anatomy professor.

Anonymous Tue May 6 06:45:26 2014 No.1722487

>>1722483
Please show me where I said "loomis is the only book you should use". I fully encourage using a variety of sources, books, references, and other supplementary material.

/ic/ is mostly beginners, it's not surprising their shit looks like stuff they're learning from. They're trying to make it look kind of like they see.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 06:46:27 2014 No.1722488 >>1722485 >Neither you or I can name every muscle or bone in the human body I can. The bones, anyway, and a lot of anterior muscles.

Anonymous Tue May 6 06:47:01 2014 No.1722489

>>1722483
>>1722483
>It's all copied straight out of the books(!!!)
>i'll be damned if more than of of it isn't traced

1 is a hilariously incorrect observation from someone who claims to be a master at it.

2 is also hilarious, since everyone uses a book and more than half of them trace I must be somehow missing over half the board

I see very few traced drawings from books.... anon usually does a paintover of a photo not a reference pic from a book.

it just keeps getting better! i need more popcorn

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 06:47:25 2014 No.1722490 >>1722468 >then why can I perfectly forshorten things at my will you can't at least if you're the guy from last time

Anonymous Tue May 6 06:53:03 2014 No.1722493

>>1722484
>math perspective
did you really just say that ? what for ?
>no advantage
why do people decide to climb mountains on foot ? while they can do it with a helicopter. if you can't figure that out then don't answer.

I stated that art was not a contest, those three line are affirmations, not sarcasm.

is that the last of your argument ? coming down to tools...

Anonymous Tue May 6 06:54:43 2014 No.1722494

>>1722487
Right, so using books is a-ok, but teaching yourself, because you were born into a shit-poor family, in a country where 'art' is literally fucking silkscreen splotch the same exact thing over and over, not just visual art, but music and every-fucking-thing you can imagine.

I really had no choice but to learn on my own.
And honestly, if I can draw (and am only 19 years old) and my shit looks to any degree realistic, then I would have to say you're willingly turning a blind eye to facts.
You want to be a cookie-cutter, go ahead. You enjoy that, good for you. But I can't imagine you can feel any pride in it, I mean sure I'm not that good but at least it's my own, you may as well buy some stencils and learn how to draw by following the predetermined cut out lines.

Anonymous Tue May 6 06:56:00 2014 No.1722496

>>1722493
Because even if it looks fine to you, I can guarantee you that it doesn't look right to someone who knows better. The human eye is very good at that sort of thing.

One is an experience, one isn't. Improving your drawing is an experience with or without books. They don't magically turn you into loomis 2.0 or whatever. By your logic, we should climb a mountain without arms or legs because then you're a more hardcore mountain climber.

Okay, but you're the one who likened it to a contest with the whole track thing.

Why not? You want a "pure" contest.

Anonymous Tue May 6 06:57:54 2014 No.1722498

>>1722494
Using books is A-okay. I'm sorry you didn't have access to those resources, but you seem to be under the impression that using them stifles you creatively.

It doesn't. Learning from a book doesn't lock you into drawing exactly like that book anymore than learning on your own locks you into drawing like you're in kindergarten does.

Anonymous Tue May 6 06:59:10 2014 No.1722499

>>1722494
Ah now we are getting somewhere.

>no choice but to learn on my own
Well good for you, you learned on your own. That doesn't mean your way is the only way the best way. Your logic seems more and more to revolve around the fact that the only people who can be good are those who have experienced the same set of circumstances as you. This is a very limiting view of the world anon. Keep learning.

Anonymous Tue May 6 07:07:00 2014 No.1722500

>>1722499
Never said any of the circumstances even had to be remotely similar. My point is that some things are best learned by experience rather than having it handed to you right off the bat, now let me use an accurate example, as the other's attempts were rather hilariously wrong:
art : loomis
tf2 : free to play

Once you get everything handed to you, you continue to expect only that.

I've met plenty of good artists who've learned on their own, most of which were well off. They started young, and learned the ropes. I can't say for certain, aside from going to school with them, some may have had lessons on the side, but the ratio could not possibly say the majority did, even more scarcely that they used loomis.

You are incredibly close minded if that's all you got from what I said. Pitifully so, in fact.

Anonymous Tue May 6 07:08:51 2014 No.1722502
File: 31 KB, 363x310, evenharder.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1722500
>learning from a book = getting everything handed to you
>once something is handed to you once, you get a sense of entitlement and will never work in self study again
>my experiences are universal rules, even though I admit there are exceptions

dis nigga

Anonymous Tue May 6 07:11:36 2014 No.1722503

>>1722498
Never said it stifles, but it certainly can't learn you a style of your own. There's a difference between a natural advancement of skill and copying from a book, sure you can try to deviate from your book learned style, but it's going to take years to unlearn that to a point where it naturally graduates into your own style.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 07:11:40 2014 No.1722504 >>1722500 Time to start showing us your masterpieces. Please please please.

Anonymous Tue May 6 07:13:09 2014 No.1722505

>>1722500
So only people who teach themselves are capable of being good in your opinion? No one who has ever been taught anything from an outside source, or studied information from a book can become good?

Can you just summarize your point anon, I'd love to get a clear definition of your philosophy on the one and only correct way to get good.

Anonymous Tue May 6 07:16:34 2014 No.1722508

>>1722503
I never said a book would teach you style. I said it would teach you fundamentals that all representational art adheres to. Choosing when and how to break those rules is "style". Learning these rules doesn't lock you into a style in anyway. If you're also learning from multiple books (like most people do), which book exactly becomes your "book learned style"?

It's the difference between learning to draw manga from studying manga, and learning what rules are broken in manga, and in what way, so if you want to draw in a manga style, it doesn't look derivative and second rate, and you can apply your own style to it as well.

Anonymous Tue May 6 07:16:50 2014 No.1722509

>>1722496
>Because even if it looks fine to you, I can guarantee you that it doesn't look right to someone who knows better.
uhhh..ok. what does that mean ? really, what is the meaning behind that phrase? and why would you claim that ? because it makes no sense. pic related, the head is a bit too big, but what of it ? it looked right for michelangelo.

>being more or less hardcore
ffs, that's not what we're saying at all, just read again..

the track thing was only an analogy: should the jet guy be proud of his performance ? answer pls.

"pure" contest, there is no such thing, in the musical world, the use of autotune is sometimes used here and there, and it's good. But why is it so bashed by all other artists ?
it is not a contest, it's just someone getting praise for something he did not do.

Anonymous Tue May 6 07:18:42 2014 No.1722511
File: 54 KB, 500x340, your idea of art.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1722502
As far as arts go, yes copying from a book is having it handed to you. If you enjoy art for what it is, then you'd seek out methods of creating art that pleases you, rather than trying to fit into stereotypical norms and predefined definitions of art.
I really am enjoying you're attempted insults. You think by skewing my words you prove a point, merely because you don't agree with me, you think trying to ridicule me is the only possible reaction. Very cute and entertaining, considering you basically admit defeat when you turn to below the belt attacks.

Anonymous Tue May 6 07:18:53 2014 No.1722512

>>1722509
So if it's okay to have errors, why bother trying to improve? Either your foreshortening is perfect or it isn't.

It's a false analogy. Learning from a book isn't like having an f-14.

It's despised because it allows people who dont understand the fundamentals to make passable music, and is an overused mechanic in today's musical landscape. Learning from books teaches fundamentals, again, incomparable.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 07:20:00 2014 No.1722513 File: 916 KB, 900x1702, 916_original.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1722509 fuck me

Anonymous Tue May 6 07:20:49 2014 No.1722515
File: 501 KB, 605x437, 1393884646183.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1722511
>learning from a book = copying
>once you read a book you replicate it instantly. It's an instant skill boost.
>by quoting my argument, you are insulting me, thus I win!
>I won't address how I'm applying my narrow worldview on a universal scale!

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 07:27:00 2014 No.1722517 >>1722511 >You'd seek out methods of creating art that pleases you >but reading art books is cheating lol wut

Anonymous Tue May 6 07:28:05 2014 No.1722519

>>1722513
>head too big

You mean the head was resized because the statue is huge and meant to be displayed on a pedestal. The head was deliberately made larger to counteract the issue of its diminished size in perspective, because of how far it was from the viewer. Because you don't read books you don't know this.

"For this reason, Michelangelo masterfully altered David with a larger upper body and enormous hands so that when viewed from below looking upward, it would appear perfectly proportional."

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 07:29:00 2014 No.1722520 File: 47 KB, 375x500, leyendecker6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1722519 rekt!

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 07:29:32 2014 No.1722521 >>1722512 art doesnt need to be perfect, all it has to do is to cover an idea or concept in a pleasing way

Anonymous Tue May 6 07:31:00 2014 No.1722522

>>1722515
learning art = copying
you don't learn art from a book by reading it, you learn art from a book by COPYING it, you attempt to redraw the book's images.
Sure it takes time to COPY the images, doesn't really mean you're learning though, just means you're COPYING.
>I spent x-amount of hours copying loomis pictures
>I have natural talent, I'm a great artist HURR DURR, no I didn't COPY this from a book

You're basing your entire artistic career on the views of somebody else, rather than actively developing your own style.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 07:31:18 2014 No.1722523 >>1722521 I didn't say it had to be perfect, but that understanding the fundamentals of how we see things helps us in representational art, because we can then deform or change things as we see fit, and still apply rules to them.

Anonymous Tue May 6 07:34:20 2014 No.1722526
File: 540 KB, 760x975, COPYGUISE.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1722522
Holy shit you are dense. It's quite obvious you haven't read any decent art book.

Since you used loomis as an example, here's a page from "fun with a pencil", notice the "you need not copy", and how he encourages you to draw on your own, not going into detail on any specific features? Almost as if he's encouraging you to look at the head as a 3d object...

Anonymous Tue May 6 07:35:28 2014 No.1722527

>>1722522
>learning art = copying
>you don't learn art from a book by reading it, you learn art from a book by COPYING it, you attempt to redraw the book's images.
thats no how it works. you read it, understand it and then just apply it yourself. There is zero need for copy.

Anonymous Tue May 6 07:35:58 2014 No.1722528

>>1722517
Never said anything was cheating, but copying somebody else's work can't possibly be fulfilling?
To look at your note book and see only somebody else's art?
Sure, if you need that crutch, go ahead and take it. Hell, not as if I care anyway, but it sure as hell doesn't make you a better person, and yet all you kids who plagiarizer these other books and works, go around claiming it as your own, claiming natural talent and skills.

Sure, not everyone is perfect, I sure ain't either. But if you're going to plagiarizer/copy which ever is your preference, don't go all fucking special snowflake on me.

If you really need to use books to make something you can enjoy, than I really don't know what to say. I can't claim that my art is good, but I can say I'm proud of it, sometimes at least, and it's my own.

If copying from books makes you happy, then who am I to stop you?

Anonymous Tue May 6 07:37:40 2014 No.1722530

It's pretty funny that people are arguing here. This anon is obviously under the impression that anyone who uses a book for learning has a sketchbook filled with nothing but exact and carefully copied pages of the same book they are learning from. In their mind no one who learns from a book every does anything but copying from those same books. No one ever draws on their own if they are learning from a book, because that's not how book learning works.... According to this anon, who doesn't use books to learn.

Anonymous Tue May 6 07:37:59 2014 No.1722531

>>1722528
Books are just ways of compiling knowledge. It's not copying, it's just a way to see how others do it. It can inspire you, you can use it as reference or study.

You seem to think people just copy books, and don't take techniques that the artist is sharing.

Anonymous Tue May 6 07:38:18 2014 No.1722532

>>1722512
>So if it's okay to have errors, why bother trying to improve?
I'm not talking about cartoon fucking scale of error, it just needs to be physically accurate, realistically approximate, convincing, anatomically possible and plausible. shall I continue?

>Either your foreshortening is perfect or it isn't.
this does it, enough of your bullshit.

>so I hear you want to create your own domino tower huh ? here, super glue.

>>1722519
cool, ty for the info. so ? again, what of it ?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 07:38:35 2014 No.1722533 File: 6 KB, 506x154, copy, what does it mean.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 07:39:59 2014 No.1722534 >>1722533 exactly what you shouldn't do when study from a book

Anonymous Tue May 6 07:41:10 2014 No.1722536

>>1722532
Surprise, that's a subjective thing. "approximate", "convincing". Knowing the actual rules can let you draw things that behave the way they would in real life, and are completely accurate. Then you can break them, breaking these rules is where all style comes from, choosing which rules to break and in what way.

>enough of your bullshit
So you admit it's not completely perfect, then?

Stop using so many false analogies.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 07:42:18 2014 No.1722537 >>1722532 >what of it? I have nothing to make of it, you made a statement, that statement was incorrect. I corrected you. >ty for info You are welcome.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 07:42:26 2014 No.1722538 >>1722536 are you autsitc?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 07:42:52 2014 No.1722540 >>1722532 >Mich make the head wrong so what I don't need rules lol >Actually he made it like that because he knew the rules of perspective, and used them to improve his work >lol who cares

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 07:43:53 2014 No.1722542 >>1722538 Nope.

Anonymous Tue May 6 07:50:44 2014 No.1722545

>>1722536
you do not deserve any answer, anybody implimenting a foreshortening should be 100% accurate, and then say he takes his lessons from vulgarised knowledge should stop talking.

>>1722537
yeah. but my point wasn't for that statue only, it was just a view enveloping a larger issue. but you should know, because you read books.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 07:52:27 2014 No.1722546 >>1722545 >You don't deserve an answer because I can't refute you anymore. I will accept your concession, then.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 07:52:36 2014 No.1722547 >>1722540 >read one line >cannot comprehend the meaning behind it >huhhuhu

Anonymous Tue May 6 07:53:34 2014 No.1722548

>>1722545
>just a view enveloping a larger issue
What view was that? I'm sorry it was unclear to me. It sounded like you were making a statement about how Michelangelo couldn't properly proportion a figure, that's all I got from it.

>you should know, because you read books
Reading books doesn't make it so I can understand what you or anyone else means if they are unclear. I don't understand why you think that is the case.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 07:54:28 2014 No.1722549 >>1722546 > anybody implimenting a foreshortening should be 100% accurate, and then say he takes his lessons from vulgarised knowledge should stop talking. wasn't too hard.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 07:55:36 2014 No.1722551 >>1722549 >Taking knowledge out of a book vulgarises it >I wasn't implying knowing the actual rules serves you better than having a visual library on it, though both are best You tried.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 08:02:52 2014 No.1722552 >>1720103 what the fuck is going on in this thread?

Anonymous Tue May 6 08:04:06 2014 No.1722553

>>1722552
Two autistics are arguing. One thinks that learning out of a book locks you into a style and you're not really an artist.

The other keeps arguing even though everyone with half a brain agrees with him, probably because he just likes to argue.

They're both faggots. Hide the thread.

Anonymous Tue May 6 08:05:13 2014 No.1722554

>>1722548
yes, but it wasn't the center of the matter, the matter being that an imperfect foreshortening can still be good and doesn't need to be "100% accurate and anatomically identical to a model" to be good. like I said, "perspective here is not perfect, so what?". wether he did it on purpose or not is of no relevance.

I throw that right back at you, and it was intended. The fact that I read or do not read books cannot be decided just because of a simple ignored fact. that's it.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 08:12:35 2014 No.1722559 >>1722552 one is a autist who genuinely believes reading from loomis/hampton will turn you into loomis/hampton. and then there are the faggots who still aren't capable of ignoring him.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 08:17:21 2014 No.1722562 >>1722553 >The other keeps arguing even though everyone with half a brain agrees with him, probably because he just likes to argue. And anyone with a full brain disagrees.

Anonymous Tue May 6 08:20:38 2014 No.1722564

>>1722554
>"perspective here is not perfect, so what?". whether he did it on purpose or not is of no relevance

It is entirely of relevance. Because the perspective is correct if you view it as it is intended to be viewed. Instead you have chosen to use a photo. Basically what you have done is distort the perspective a drawing and then said "this is not good proportion" when the drawing in fact has appropriate proportion if you don't distort it. You do understand how sculpture is a different medium from drawing right?

>The fact that I read or do not read books cannot be decided just because of a simple ignored fact. that's it.
You're right about this, except you have explicitly stated multiple times that you don't read books so I can extrapolate that information from previous statements.

>>1722559
This is where you hide the thread if you don't like it, personally, I'm having fun here.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 08:21:22 2014 No.1722565 >>1722553 >one is actually someone who achieved a very good level by working by himself, and the other is a tipical d/ic/ck, still trying to feel what vilppu wrote in his book, and gets blocked at drawing circles with loomis.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 08:21:25 2014 No.1722566 >>1722562 >lel I'm so funnay epic joke oh man, you sure showed that guy, holy fuck I bet he just went home and killed himself rofl you are so original

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 08:22:37 2014 No.1722567 >>1722565 >>1722562 >If I samefag, I'll look like I'm right!

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 08:22:46 2014 No.1722568 >>1722565 Still waiting for you to respond to the earlier request for you to show some work anon.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 08:24:08 2014 No.1722569 >>1722526 >anon posts this >no response from copy crowd

Anonymous Tue May 6 08:25:16 2014 No.1722571
File: 4 KB, 341x106, can't into claiming samefag.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1722567
What the fuck? Not even close.
I'm the second post listed, no fucking idea who the other guy is.
You're a massive retard, pal. I mean, are you even trying?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 08:27:34 2014 No.1722573 File: 4 KB, 330x99, ITooCanShoop.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1722571 Dat proof tho

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 08:29:14 2014 No.1722574 >>1722573 love this thread.

Anonymous Tue May 6 08:31:23 2014 No.1722577

>>1722564
nononono, "distort the perspective", no, It is distorted on every angle it was not intented to be, and on the particular angle of that particular photo, it is. The angle I wanted to use, is that one. that's all. (and i'm not saying I knew it was purposely distorded) wether or not it is from michelangelo, da vinci or whatever, I'm just using THAT figure, that's all...

and well your comment on books seemed rather passive agressive, a way to just say you're stupid. I'm talking about art books.

>>1722559
hide or join, your post has absolutely no relevance

Anonymous Tue May 6 08:32:38 2014 No.1722578

>>1722573
I didn't edit mine, tho.
suppose I can't really show you more images, though, all I got is shitty snip tool and no photo-shop. That was absolutely not me. Can't even begin to explain how much I laughed when I saw your post.

I left my room for a minute there, had planned on not replying after that silly halfabrain/whole brain joke. It was meant in good humor. Not to mention how slow I am at typing, lol.
But you don't have to believe the truth if you don't want to.
It's really funnier if you don't. At least from my point of view.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 08:33:56 2014 No.1722579 >>1722578 I used paint for that. Literally took me 2 seconds. You don't need photoshop for that, at all. keep on trying hard, tho.

Anonymous Tue May 6 08:36:32 2014 No.1722581

>>1722577
>The angle I wanted to use, is that one. that's all
Ok so you're cherry picking to prove your point. I get it. Well played.

The comment was not meant to be a way to call you stupid it was meant to be a way to show you that you can learn things from art books without copying from them. I've yet to hear you admit this fact in any way, shape, or form and wanted to hammer that point home.

Anonymous Tue May 6 08:38:36 2014 No.1722584
File: 135 KB, 673x263, wisdom.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1722579
I don't use paint, lol, I use paper and pencil only.
I don't really care at this point, it truly wasn't me, I wasn't looking to spark the fire again, I was just making a silly remark. And I couldn't care less what you believe, because I know it wasn't me. Like I said, you don't have to believe the truth.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 08:39:04 2014 No.1722585 >>1722569 what is there to answer ? doing something that someone else is doing step by step, telling you how you need to do it is not copying ? are you both >>1722526 believing that I'm talking about the drawings in itself BWAHAH.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 08:40:16 2014 No.1722588 >>1722584 >I dont use paint Lol. This guy.

Anonymous Tue May 6 08:41:32 2014 No.1722592

>>1722585
I'm just >>1722569

You said it's about copying, and you'll only be able to draw i nthat style, the anon posted a page in a book showing that it's abotu concepts, not individual features or whatever, now it seems like you're shifting goalposts, which weakens your position, hence why you didn't respond earlier.

Anonymous Tue May 6 08:44:18 2014 No.1722596

>>1722585
>doing something that someone else is doing step by step, telling you how to need to do it

How'd you learn to speak without "copying" someone OP? Sounds like you're a bit of a hypocrite if you're all against copying but this in fact your definition of it.

Anonymous Tue May 6 08:45:00 2014 No.1722598
File: 29 KB, 331x294, harry-carmean-foreshortening.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1722581
what in the world are you calling cherrypicking ? you need to read my answer again. wether it is from michelangelo or from any other fucking source...listen, pic related, does this seemlike a 100% accurate foreshortening, clearly it is not, does it look bad ? no it doesn't. THAT'S IT, is it that hard to understand ?

Anonymous Tue May 6 08:46:07 2014 No.1722603
File: 9 KB, 781x497, brucie.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1722588
I don't. I have shitty mouse with very extremely bad sensitivity. I made an all time total of three pics, of my cat and evolving into electric cat thing. Haven't touched it since.
Fuck it, have a cat pic, because you made me reply again.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 08:47:03 2014 No.1722605 >>1722603 The background is literally a solid colour, man. I did it with a mouse.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 08:47:04 2014 No.1722606 >>1722598 it does look a little bad..or, rephrasing. it would be better if the foreshortening were better. especially with the hands and whatever's going on in the neck area.

Anonymous Tue May 6 08:49:06 2014 No.1722609

>>1722592
do you know what a method is ? do you think a method has no consequences on the style ? even so, he took a page from a book where all he does is little shitty characters. just take a look at his other serious books, it is way way more accurate and organized.

Anonymous Tue May 6 08:50:47 2014 No.1722612
File: 12 KB, 781x497, catified.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1722605
Yeah, not like it's rocket science. I understand how, I just don't give a shit. I'm not going to waste my time editing something. If it was me, I'd admit it. Hell, it's really so insignificant I don't really understand why you want to drag this on further.
But whatever I guess it just means you get to see another shitty paint cat pic. this is cat+electric, enjoy

Anonymous Tue May 6 08:52:06 2014 No.1722614

>>1722609
I never said method, I said concepts. Concepts like treating the head as a 3d form, not a flat plane. Surely you agree you need to do that in representational art? Also, saying certain books are good/bad or cause copying/dont cause is shifting goalposts.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 08:52:59 2014 No.1722617 File: 306 KB, 1300x1113, cristomorto-mantegna.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1722606 yeah sure it isn't perfect, but that's not the point, it looks "normal". this is what I call bad foreshortening, really shitty one at that.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 08:53:07 2014 No.1722618 >>1722612 Well, I have to admit anon, I am enjoying your cats.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 08:54:18 2014 No.1722619 >>1722612 >>1722603 Man, Catified was such a Brucie rip off, when are they going to come up with original pokemon?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 08:55:52 2014 No.1722620 >>1722614 do you really need someone to tell you that to draw a 3d object you need to think in 3d ? really ?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 08:57:01 2014 No.1722622 >>1722620 There's other concepts like breaking down the complex contour into easy shapes, etc. I was just using one example.

Anonymous Tue May 6 08:57:34 2014 No.1722623
File: 281 KB, 1366x662, download (10).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1722618
I'm sorry, friend I can't find the third pic. Was pretty much just some more electric and stuff.
But I have this instead, it's from a different site, online etc.
Here's a link in case you're interested
http://weavesilk.com/

I think /ic/ could do some neat shit with it.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 08:58:03 2014 No.1722624 >>1722609 How would you know this unless you read his book?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 08:59:05 2014 No.1722626 >>1722619 IKR? Stupid Brucie, was playing with some wires, so I tried to show him what could happen.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 09:03:17 2014 No.1722630 >>1722624 That's... A very good question, anon...

Anonymous Tue May 6 09:10:20 2014 No.1722633

I started just drawing what I see, actually learned basic anatomy by myself. I recently started using books and I got a lot better. But I dont use Loomis so often. I prefer Hogarth and Vilppu. And I only used then constructions. I have books with muscls and stuffs and bones. I also have a whole library of pdfs. I got enough knowledge to say whats good and relevant and you learn a lil from everything. (8gb+ on pdfs) :p

Anonymous Tue May 6 09:31:29 2014 No.1722643

>>1722381
shitlords doing things the hard way because "they're badass lone wolves that can get shit done without help" are indeed walking the path, wereas smart people diligently learning from good resources are as well on the path, with race cars
If some retards don't take advantage properly from resources it doesn't mean resources are bad, as well as if someone just happens to figure it out without any help it doesn't mean working completely in the dark is any better.

and all this "I did it all alone, im true original voice" is fucking bullshit, there is nothing original, creativity works with knowledge, the more you know the more creative you can be, that also means that even if you come up with something completly by yourself, it's based on what you know, you already saw it somewhere else, you're just mixing it or deforming it to produce something seemingly unique.

Seriously, you faggots need to dump that mindset of "studying from books kills my unique-ness, imitating other's drowns my own voice" because it's detrimental as fuck.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 09:42:40 2014 No.1722649 >>1722643 No anon, not learning from a book makes you ~original~, like how all the classic masters never learned under anyone! Then you can be a special little snowflake and make threads like these!

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 09:51:37 2014 No.1722654 >>1722411 >Light and perspective aren't fundamentals Oh /ic/. Lol.

Anonymous Tue May 6 10:01:37 2014 No.1722658

Still waiting for this amazeballs lonewolf who learned everything themselves without outside help to post their arts. As always with these arguments I can find results from people doing it the way I'm trying to do it, but I never get to see the results of others who claim their way is better.... If only they had something that would persuade me. I'm an open minded individual, and my current method is working just fine for me. But if anon can show me that their way results in better work perhaps they can help me become a more "original" artist.

Anonymous Tue May 6 10:10:37 2014 No.1722664

>>1722654
yeah, he said it's more important than fundamentals. what did you not understand ?

>>1722658
post your work, then we'll can compare. "the guy asking for you to post your work must post his first", basic rule of /ic/ if you want to survive in those loomis lands.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 10:15:06 2014 No.1722672 >>1722664 See >>1722668 My work sucks ain't no question. Show me the way anon.

Anonymous Tue May 6 10:22:52 2014 No.1722677
File: 8 KB, 200x200, What+the+hell+_0f9cea815bd198565d7aae2593b6ef42.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1722672
oh LAWD
well, there you go >>1721954
Op decided of the poses though.
and If you want a quick self portrait of me I did in ~5mins then >>1721082

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 10:23:16 2014 No.1722678 he already did it last time. his work isn't that special, and especially not original.

Anonymous Tue May 6 10:26:01 2014 No.1722680
File: 163 KB, 768x1152, IMG_1148.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1722677
Do you have anything you haven't already posted in another thread? Second post sure looks good. I got stuff to prove that's me, (pic related, same model another shitty drawing). Meanwhile you can just be hotlinking stuff you think looks good. Sorry anon, but I gotta ask for something original.

Pic related to prove I'm as bad as I say I am, can you post something new as well?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 10:26:30 2014 No.1722681 >>1722678 and yet better than you john-kun. how is miku-san doing ?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 10:29:30 2014 No.1722683 >>1722680 well I have the source file on sai, or you can decide a pose and i'll do it. really I don't care wether you believe me or not, but if you really want to choose a pose then do it.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 10:30:06 2014 No.1722684 >>1722664 >Those are not fundamentals, they are laws you apply, literally 1 picture will explain it all for you I think he's implying they don't count as fundamentals.

Anonymous Tue May 6 10:31:47 2014 No.1722685

>>1722683
But if I choose a pose you'll be copying me and that's exactly what you are out to disprove right? Just draw something from your head anon or post something you've already made that's not already on the board here. Surely you've got more drawings on your hard drive?

Anonymous Tue May 6 10:33:25 2014 No.1722686

I gotta ask to mr. lonewolf, given what you've said about your theories of learning art why are you on this board? For laughs? Doesn't seem like you've provided anything useful except to tell everyone that their method of learning is shit and everyone should figure everything out by themselves without outside help.

Anonymous Tue May 6 10:40:53 2014 No.1722691

>>1722681
i don't think so. well, your raw knowledge of anatomy is good.
but you know, babby kun. i once thought the same as you. i thought i could draw anything. just because of a few sketches.
but then i challenged myself and realized there was much more to learn.

you'll be able to impress some beginners but i haven't been impressed since the start. show me a finished illustration (you claim they are so much better), otherwise i'm not convinced in the least.

Anonymous Tue May 6 10:43:09 2014 No.1722693

>>1722686
nope, I do not keep my things, I generally throw most of it, but anyway, I'll just do some foreshortening I guess.

>>1722686
there's some good news on here sometimes, for laughs too of course, but mostly because this is interactive. you should stay hidden and keep lurking if that's all you gonna say.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 10:43:50 2014 No.1722694 >>1722693 Cool thanks.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 10:44:51 2014 No.1722695 >>1722683 >BE ORIGINAL >give me a pose to draw Suddenly I'm really confused....

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 10:49:06 2014 No.1722700 File: 408 KB, 500x271, 1357171376174.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1722691 the difference between us being that your finished peaces can't even get near my sketches

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 10:50:38 2014 No.1722701 >>1722695 the pose to draw is just to prove him the work is done for this occasion, and if you think by original I mean the pose of the figure or something, man, start taking some reading lessons

Anonymous Tue May 6 10:52:43 2014 No.1722703

>>1722700
but your sketches are shit. that's the point.
some of them are less shit than others, but your level isn't as high as you think.

again, you just need to post your perfect illustrations to prove me wrong.
but we know they don't exist buddy. they're as shit as your sketches

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 10:59:54 2014 No.1722709 >>1722703 yep they are, still doesn't change the fact that your fnished work doesn't even reach ONE of my sketches. thus, your argument is invalid. you have no right to talk.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 11:01:07 2014 No.1722711 >>1722703 Stop distracting him, I want to see more of anons work, not links to stuff already on the board. >>1722709 Why don't you keep your stuff anon?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 11:13:14 2014 No.1722721 >>1722711 what do you mean ?

Anonymous Tue May 6 11:14:47 2014 No.1722724

>>1722709
>yep they are, still doesn't change the fact that your finished work doesn't even reach ONE of my sketches
yep, that's what you tell yourself and that's how you got this ego.
you really have a high opinion of those sketches huh.

i mean you honestly show me this turd >>1721082 and expect me to be impressed?
and yea yeah, bla bla 5 minutes. stop kidding yourself. it's pathetic.
the truth is you're insecure as fuck over your art, that's why you're so prickly about comments directed at it.
you still suck at faces, women and couldn't push those sketches even of you tried.

again: do me a favor and prove me wrong.

Anonymous Tue May 6 11:15:06 2014 No.1722725

>>1722721
Which part are you asking about?

First quote was directed at people who were talking shit while I'm waiting for the Lonewolf to show me some original work, which they stated earlier they would do.

Second quote was directed at who I assumed was Lonewolf who stated earlier that they don't keep their work and hence couldn't rapidly upload something original that wasn't already posted on the board.

Anonymous Tue May 6 11:21:40 2014 No.1722729

>>1722724
haha, true I almost never draw women cause they are not fun to draw, but on that thread, a guy just like you, challenged me, gave me a pose, asked to do a women, together. and we posted our result. in the end, his work was shit, and mine a LOT better, and you can still see on the time stamp, that took me 5 mins to do what he did in a long ass time, and failed. so now, either step up your game, post your work, or stfu, and stop talking to your seinseis like that, chibi kun.

>>1722725
ah yeah, because I don't personally find it useful, I almost never draw, around 2hours a week or so, so i don't really need to keep my stuff. most of the work is knowledge anyway.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 11:24:36 2014 No.1722732 >>1722680 >something original? >>1722693 >i'll just do some foreshortening i guess. >>1722729 >can draw cool stuff in 5 minutes It's been over a 40 minutes. Still waiting by the way... patiently waiting.... please and thank you anon.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 11:31:24 2014 No.1722735 >>1722732 do you still want to wait ?

Anonymous Tue May 6 11:36:03 2014 No.1722741
File: 63 KB, 756x959, skeleton.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1722732
will you believe me If I said that I took a shit between ? guess not huh, and I answered your shit, takes time too.

anyway, here's the the skeleton. didn't get as I wanted but doesn't matter for you right ?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 11:38:19 2014 No.1722744 File: 69 KB, 804x977, body.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1722741 and the body, now I know, my hands are shit, still didn't really work on those...let's just say he is carrying stuff.

Anonymous Tue May 6 11:38:31 2014 No.1722745

>>1722741
Yes I'll believe you, wasn't trying to rush you just saying that I was still waiting and willing to wait.

This isn't as good as your other drawing, in my opinion, but whatevers. Thanks for showing off your skills! I'm not sure how I can apply this method to get better, but I guess I'll start by honing my observational skills more and stop trying to learn from any other source but myself.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 11:39:32 2014 No.1722746 >>1722744 Ah, that's better.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 11:43:43 2014 No.1722750 >>1722746 wut, did you believe the skeleton was the finished one........? this is just to prove that I did the pose. and is your first comment ironic ?

Anonymous Tue May 6 11:45:38 2014 No.1722752

>>1722750
Nope, I honestly thought that was what you were posting as your example haha.

My first comment was not ironic, you said if I would believe you if you said you took a shit in between, I said sure I'll believe that. We seem to have some issues communicating anon....

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 11:46:31 2014 No.1722753 >>1722750 if it isn't ironic, put those books away, i'll tell you how I worked and shit like that.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 11:50:47 2014 No.1722757 >>1722753 go for it. but remember >my name's not Jayne

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 11:52:02 2014 No.1722759 >>1722505 >>1722753 FINALLY going to get an answer to this?! Geez, took long enough.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 11:57:22 2014 No.1722763 File: 73 KB, 400x300, 37600783.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1722759 oh sry, that wasn't a reply to me, so I didn't even notice it. oh well, i'll write about most of the things I did. brace yourselves.

Anonymous Tue May 6 12:13:11 2014 No.1722777

>>1720103
I simply started drawing, and kept drawing until it turned out how I wanted. I got input from people from art class who simply suggested ways to get it better, which was really helpful, but only to that point.

Loomis will turn artists into uninspired artists who only know how to follow a certain set of rules and nothing else.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 12:34:20 2014 No.1722788 >>1722677 oh wow you are the faggot who keeps saying he doesnt need books but all your stiff characters look like loomis ripoffs + you cant shade to save your life fuck off trash

Anonymous Tue May 6 12:36:30 2014 No.1722790
File: 139 KB, 798x954, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1722763
First of all things I did, when I became interested in the human anatomy, was learn every muscle, I was pretty passionate about it, so it was way easier than doing homework oor something like that. I found an interactive muscle figure here, it's french, but I think you can change it:

>http://www.ikonet.com/fr/sante/corpshumainvirtuel/corpshumainvirtuel.php

when I learned the muslces, I also wanted to learn how they function, so I had to learn every bone of the skeleton (half of them), and this is important, a well built skeleton is pretty usefull. start of by learning superficial muscles, then do the rest for fun (deep back muscles are important though)

then my friend showed me zygote body, wich was the previous google body, this was perfect for me, time to put some volume to your knowledge:

>http://www.zygotebody.com/

After studying a lot of ecorchés and shit like that around the net, I started looking at dance/gymnastic/bodybuilding videos, even sprint ones help. Mostly slow motion, this is GREAT for 'animating' your knowledge, flexion/extension of muscles, the way they change shape etc etc.

the most important part in figure drawing is not "flow" or "fluidity" thing, it's knowledge, like in pic related, when you know where every muscle go where, and on what bone, after a few times you can just do in in every direction. It all comes after knowledge.

now start creating skeleton poses from imagination, and build the muscles on, don't care if it looks bad or strange, just draw a lot of ecorchés first. after a while, depends on you, start looking at dynamic pictures, naked bodies, and ANALIZE it, do not REPRODUCE it this is the stage where you look at the skin's caracteristics. understand it, memorize it, shape by shape, you can even sketch a skin fold for example, a bump etc etc.

and that's it, didn't need life drawing or things like that, knowledge. have fun.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 12:38:57 2014 No.1722791 >>1722790 It shows that you didnt do any life drawing. Lines and character are stiff, you dont understand how the human body behaves in life. In another thread you kept on saying how great your finished stuff is, pls post.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 12:40:10 2014 No.1722792 >>1722790 Ah that's cool, so anatomy resources and books and stuff are fine then? There was a rather long argument earlier about not using any books or outside resources...

Anonymous Tue May 6 12:46:07 2014 No.1722796

>>1722791
well, I just started drawing bodies, but If you really like to talk, show me how fluid and soft your bodies are. so I can learn from you john-kun. tell me what looks so stiff in this pls >>1722744

>>1722792
go up, find me something other than "how to" books I was against. and It was already said that anatomical books are not stylisized book, they are just factual books.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 13:00:27 2014 No.1722800 File: 50 KB, 582x882, 2stiff.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1722791 does this look stiff too john-kun ? I just want to learn.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 13:02:00 2014 No.1722802 >>1722800 I disagree with the stiffness comment, but would like to see something shaded or that looks like more than a quick sketch.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 13:05:02 2014 No.1722804 >>1722802 i don't think it's gonna happen anon, mr lonewolf already stated they throw out most of their stuff and they only draw for 2 hours a week, i'd venture to bet they have no "finished" work.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 13:06:42 2014 No.1722806 File: 360 KB, 449x401, laughing_whores.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >muh anatomy >nigga can't even define muscles properly Toppest of keks.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 13:17:23 2014 No.1722807 >>1722800 yes

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 13:23:40 2014 No.1722811 >>1720103 What is it with nips and RYO Cigs?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 13:32:16 2014 No.1722815 >>1722811 ... Anime takes place in a world where the only way you could smoke a cigarette is if you roll it yourself. It's not an industrialized world, they don't sell cigs in the stores of this world.

Anonymous Tue May 6 13:46:52 2014 No.1722822

Regardless of how you lean to draw, exactly what you learn is unchanging whether you lean it yourself after years of drawing from childhood or from concepts taught by books. Thinking that Loomis, Vilppu or some other resource is a sort of strict and mandatory dogmatic rule set rather than a collection of concepts designed to simplify the learning process is asinine and the fact that someone thinks this way shows the true maturity level of an artist. If you learned to draw on your own then I applaud you but thinking that another resource to help you be a better artist is somehow a bad thing is absolutely ridiculous and an ultimately harmful way of thinking.

Anonymous Tue May 6 14:26:23 2014 No.1722835
File: 14 KB, 1400x1113, sitting2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Kinda, I feel like I'm limiting myself until I take a serious consideration into studying art. But at the same time I know I can't take the time to study as I have other concerns in my life, so it's basically a hobby. Like, I figured out how to sketch this from little things I've read on the internet, but I can hardly go any further. There's definitely progress though.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 14:56:12 2014 No.1722860 This has to be the ultimate troll thread.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 23:04:22 2014 No.1723236 >>1722804 Obviously Mr. Lonewolf is just holding back his beautiful work, he's not just posting quick sketches because he lacks fundamentals from not studying. kek

>>	Anonymous Tue May 6 23:16:05 2014 No.1723241 >>1722800 >muh anatomy >makes the sacro0illac crest come up to the navel >not even close to proper insertion points for the triceps, obliques or pecs. >Has the femur bending in the leg You tried, anon.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 00:11:57 2014 No.1723277 >>1723241 >>1723236 Has nothing to say other then >muh anatomy not 100% perfect hurr >muh finished work The jelly is High up in this thread.

Anonymous Wed May 7 00:23:43 2014 No.1723281

>>1723277
>implying something like the sacroilliac crest being by the naval isn't also proportions
>Implying the femur bending in the leg isn't also perspective

So he fucked up:
Anatomy
Perspective
Proportions
And the gesture isn't all that great, looking still very stiff and non-life like.

Basically, it's a polished turd. On top of that, ironically the style of the drawing looks like something loomis would draw, which is just funny.

But keep on thinking that kind of sketch will impress anyone who knows wtf they're doing.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 00:31:35 2014 No.1723289 >>1723281 show us what you can do oh master skectcher, oh wait, you can't do anything more than miku-chans..ok ty.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 00:32:41 2014 No.1723290 >>1723289 >That house looks like shit >wow lets see you build a house oh wait you can't rekt That is, and always has been, a shitty argument. I don't need to be a chef to notice you burned the fuck out of my chicken.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 00:40:53 2014 No.1723296 File: 28 KB, 300x300, 1348096892797.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1723290 >I know anatomy >I am on an art thread >can't draw for the sake of my art argument >make a bad analogy to get away with it

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 00:43:13 2014 No.1723297 >>1723241 >sacroilliac crest on a front view body, laughed. >muh anatomy

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 00:43:25 2014 No.1723298 >>1723289 >you can't say this good tastes like shit, you're not a chef >you can't say this song sucks, you're not a producer >you can't say this movie sucks, you're not a renowned critic

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 00:43:26 2014 No.1723299 >>1723296 >Can't defend the flaws in his sketch, instead attacking others >Doesn't say why my analogy is flawed Notice how film critics don't all make movies? How all art critics aren't professional artists?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 00:44:50 2014 No.1723301 File: 17 KB, 350x231, IllacCrest.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1723297 Yes, the illac crest can be see from the front view

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 00:48:11 2014 No.1723305 File: 55 KB, 350x231, 1399437890551.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1723301 sure, ILLIAC crest, let me remind you >sacroilliac >doesn't know about the anatomic naming.

Anonymous Wed May 7 00:50:28 2014 No.1723307

>>1723305
Eh, my anatomy teacher in university always called it the sacroilliac crest, so it always stuck with me that way. That's the sacroilliac joint, if you wanna be really anal, sacroilliac crest doesn't exist, because it doesn't actually crest at any point in the meet-up. Sorry for the confusion.

Anonymous Wed May 7 00:55:10 2014 No.1723309

>>1723299
you're on an art board, you can always take it and redline it, go ahead. you're just the usual /ic/ lurker.
I don't really give a shit about people who can't draw and judge others who can, they are not legitimate, not worth, only if you can do something acceptable will I aknowledge your point of view, wait, seems like you can't either...

Anonymous Wed May 7 00:57:27 2014 No.1723310

>>1723309
Lol. That sort of arrogance is why your sketches look like shit. You can't refute anything I've said because it's true. You can't demand redlines for critiques like you're a god.

I guess movie directors shouldn't listen to film critics right? If you ever go to an art show and a art critic gives you a critique, fuck him, he can't draw. am i rite?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 01:01:29 2014 No.1723313 >>1723310 >You can't demand redlines for critiques like you're a god. But that's the entire point of this damn board.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 01:02:45 2014 No.1723314 >>1723313 You can ask for them, but people are under no obligation to give them to you. I gave you a perfectly valid critique. The board is "artwork/critique" not "artwork/redline".

Anonymous Wed May 7 01:12:01 2014 No.1723318

>>1723314
you can't ask for them
>I gav you a valid critique even though I don't reall know what i'm talking about, and can't draw at all. but my critique is valid. because it's valid.
>sacroilliac crest being by the navel

not only did he critic the placement of the navel, like that's a big deal, but he keeps thinks thinking it's wrong, even though the pelvis is clearly bent.

>I guess movie directors shouldn't listen to film critics right?
they don't.

Anonymous Wed May 7 01:12:59 2014 No.1723319

>>1723309
>it's not shit because someone hasn't red lined it yet
That is a terrible attitude. Regardless if someone is better or worse as an artist if what they say is true and good critique or advice then you're only hurting yourself by being so selective.

Anonymous Wed May 7 01:17:15 2014 No.1723321

>>1723318
Bend your pelvis in real life. You'll never get your illiac crest that high compared to your navel The middle of the crest is at level with the navel for Christ sake.

Yes, when you're talking about how good yo uare because you didn't read books, then you make such a basic proportions/anatomy mistake, you look like a fool. Never mind the fact I also said his insertion points for the Tris, Obliques and pecs are fucked up, and the femur is bending improperly. Look how skinny he makes the beginning of the shin, I'll bet that's why he stopped there. He doesn't draw in the knee joint properly either. There is a lot wrong with that drawing.

Plenty do, and no one disputes their ability to critique a film in the first place on the basis of them not making movies, because that would be stupid.

Anonymous Wed May 7 01:34:15 2014 No.1723330
File: 77 KB, 800x960, 1367372192565.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1723321
sure, guess we're all that bad. because you have absolutely no knowledge of what you are talking about doesn't make you right.

>basic proportion/anatomy
>all bodies are of the same proportions
>there is no difference between people
>polymorphism ? what's that

enlighten us.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 01:37:01 2014 No.1723335 File: 691 KB, 1852x1344, 1396911794166.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1723321 you done goofed

Anonymous Wed May 7 01:37:22 2014 No.1723337

>>1723330
rofl, unless you're drawing a midget, the illiac crest will never be that high. There are variations in proportions, but the way you've drawn the legs on insertion points of some muscles isn't physically possible on a human. That person wouldn't even be able to stand up, never mind the weird jumping/twisting motion you have him doing.

You're attempting to use polymorphism to cover up the fact you can't actually draw a realistic person, you're just as bad as animu fags who draw like shit and cover it up with "muh style".

Anonymous Wed May 7 01:38:36 2014 No.1723339

>>1723335
You realise those are obliques, not the illiac crest, right? Look at where the legs are in comparison, then look back at the drawing. Look how much higher the navel is on a real person.

>mfw people don't know the difference between a bone process and a mother fucking muscle

Anonymous Wed May 7 01:43:27 2014 No.1723345

>>1723337
roflmaxoma. when your post gets devalorised by a picture right before. guess those guys are midgets. guess this isn't reaslistoic enough huh >>1722744

>>1723339
>mfw when people don't know on what the obliques are attached

ahhh, those 12yo kids I swear.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 01:45:21 2014 No.1723348 >>1723345 >mfw people think the obliques are on the illum because it inserts on illum, and you don't even know what the linea alba is Holy shit just stop posting, you look retarded.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 01:51:38 2014 No.1723354 >>1723345 Uhh, you realize the obliques have the distal insertion point of the illum (and linea alba), but proximately insert on the surface of ribs 5-12?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 01:55:04 2014 No.1723357 >>1723348 >"mfw when people think that an object"s base is at the same level of a table because it's on it hurr durr" here, what's wrong here. go ahead, fix pls. make me look retarded.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 01:55:43 2014 No.1723360 File: 90 KB, 570x880, hhu.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1723357 pic

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 01:55:53 2014 No.1723361 >>1723348 Just give up man. No matter who wins this argument, everyone lost in the end.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 01:57:06 2014 No.1723363 >>1723357 >Oblique muscles run down the entire side of the abdomen >A couple people have insertions on the Linea alba, thus giving them a bump there >LOL ITS THE ILLIAC CREST ITS NOT SHIT LOL Rofl, dude you don't know anything about anatomy. Just stop.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 01:59:48 2014 No.1723367 >>1723363 you do realise what I drew is not the illac crest right ? omg you're so bad at arguing. and anyway, here >>1723360 fix it.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:01:06 2014 No.1723368 >>1723363 pathetic

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:01:28 2014 No.1723369 >>1723367 Except it is. You argued that it was fine because of polymorphism, now you're shifting the goal post because you realize you're wrong. Due to where the legs are located on that drawing, it can only be the illiac crest.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:02:29 2014 No.1723370 >>1723368 What, the fact you can't refute me? Yeah, it is pathetic.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:04:29 2014 No.1723372 >>1723369 alright, it seems there is no point arguing with you, you're right, so just fix the pic pls. i'm not the one who sits there behind my computer talking shit, i'm the one postinig my work, so fix it, and end it all for us.

Anonymous Wed May 7 02:06:00 2014 No.1723373

>>1723372
Well I'm glad you agree I'm right. Still not fixing your pic though. I gave you a valid crit. I'm under no obligation to redline it for you (I thought we went over this?).

Besides, do you really want someone who used art books to fix your work? Won't it drain it of all it's soul? Lel.

Since you admitted defeat, I'm going to go to bed. Peace nigga.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:08:58 2014 No.1723376 >>1723373 that was clearly ironic, but anyway, go sleep. without proving anything, goodbye. ty for proving me right. most of the work is already done.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:10:00 2014 No.1723378 >>1723373 you got shut down.

Anonymous Wed May 7 02:12:13 2014 No.1723380

>>1723372
Not even that anon, but

>giving crit = talking shit

Get over yourself, dude. He's right, and the only thing you have to say it "either kowtow to my needs and stfu" You're somehow hoping his skill (or lacktherefore) in drawing will prove you right, when it has no bearing on the accuracy of your anatomy.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:13:24 2014 No.1723381 >>1723376 >2014 >not knowing the difference between irony and sarcasm >Shiggy

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:14:25 2014 No.1723382 >>1723376 >I won't redline it for you, you don't have any refutations, this is the end of the argument >haha wow thanks for proving me right max damage control, engage

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:15:27 2014 No.1723384 >>1723376 >not redlining someone's work after they argue with you >proving them right haha, oh wow. Never change, /ic/

Anonymous Wed May 7 02:15:56 2014 No.1723385

>>1723380
not at all, the sketch is REALLY acceptable, wether it is 100% anatomically accurate or not, it is clearly plausible and not disproportionate, i'm not saying it is perfect since it's a fucking sketch, but it is not wrong either. He called it shit as in completely disproportionate, then he needs to show me what he's talking about that's all.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:16:30 2014 No.1723386 >>1723376 >the guy is already gone >I better get the last word!!! then I won't look butthurt lel

Anonymous Wed May 7 02:17:59 2014 No.1723387

>>1723385
What are you talking about? He told you exactly why. He outlined muscles that have improper insertion points, how the proportions of your abodmen are off, etc etc

Just because he won't redline it for you doesn't mean he's not right. It's a passable sketch, but it's by no means great. Certaintly not better or more original than someone who learned from a book could do (which I thought was the whole point of this thread)

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:18:47 2014 No.1723388 File: 238 KB, 1174x928, hiiii.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1723381 >>1723382 >>1723384 butthurts, and you know what I do for them ?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:20:07 2014 No.1723390 >>1723388 >people laughing at your obvious butthurt >n-no you're butthurt! Look at this sketch I did in another thread!! rofl. MAXIMUM DAMAGE CONTROL

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:21:13 2014 No.1723391 >>1723388 >has to post a sketch he did in another thread to make himself feel better dude, you got wrecked. It's okay. Shh.

Anonymous Wed May 7 02:21:23 2014 No.1723392
File: 287 KB, 1020x740, 216.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

This is the worst shitfest I've seen on here in a long time. A lot of whiny bitches trying to out anatomy each other when most of the people involved only barely know what they are talking about. And no one is offering any real help or is able to draw properly it seems. >>1723360 doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.

Anyways, I did a quick redline. Also worth noting is that knowing the names of all the specifics is not necessary. Learning how to draw them is key. I also labelled some main points on the pelvis because people are arguing a ton over. Jesus christ, grow up people.

Anonymous Wed May 7 02:22:43 2014 No.1723393

>>1723387
wat ? I outlined it, well if you think that was right, then thx, you're saying I'm right. sure, nobody posted a better work yet. show me masters.

>>1723386
>running away without doing anything but talk shit and actually not prove anything
>so fabulous
>so right
>so cool

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:22:48 2014 No.1723394 >>1723388 >Still drawing the illiac crest above the navel troll plz

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:23:49 2014 No.1723396 >>1723393 See, you're doing exactly what you did to that other anon. You say if you don't redline something, it can't possibly be right. Keep shielding your ego man, you'll never improve.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:24:50 2014 No.1723397 >>1723393 >You don't have an argument to throw at him, just yelling "Red line!" over and over >he leaves cause you're a retard >wow what a pussy lol I obviously won

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:24:50 2014 No.1723398 >>1723392 BWHAAHA looks like shit

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:25:51 2014 No.1723399 >>1723398 And I'm sure you have real critiques to back that up, like how his proportions or anatomy are off, right? You wouldn't just be blowing smoke out your ass to cover yourself, right?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:28:31 2014 No.1723400 >>1723398 >Muscle insertion points way better >pelvis way better >leg isn't bending like it's made of playdough It's better than yours bro, even if some of the lines are hairy.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:29:13 2014 No.1723401 >>1723399 no, It looks normal, it's not wrong, but it is a completely different posture and morphology. he didn't fix shit. at all.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:30:33 2014 No.1723402 >>1723393 >it's not shit unless he redlines it personally! I haven't seen an anal deconstruction of this magnitude on /ic/ in a while Good show

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:31:03 2014 No.1723403 >>1723401 >impossible to give you a red line due to how fucked up your have the legs/pelvis/abdomen >some guy fixes it as best he can because yours is pants on head retarded >it's completely different!

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:33:36 2014 No.1723408 >>1723401 >It looks normal, it's not wrong >BAHAHA it's shit DAMAGE. CONTROL.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:35:11 2014 No.1723409 >>1723403 >call a dynamic posture fucked up because he doesn't know shit about how it works >some guys does an incredibly generic and shitty pose so it's better because it's easier to do. >hurr

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:36:49 2014 No.1723410 File: 137 KB, 650x650, damagecontrol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1723409 >The muscles being completely fucked up and the bones not being proportionate is on purpose, it's dynamic!

Anonymous Wed May 7 02:36:51 2014 No.1723411

>>1720103
Have you ever wondered why china and lot of other asian countries can crank out so many technically skilled artist? While it's true they combine book work with studio work, grinding it in. There is actually more to it than that. There is one crucial element that is often overlooked by foreigners. It's the one thing that makes it all work. The one thing that decides if you'll be okay at art or a master.

It's playing.

The very first lesson in art is picking up a crayon or a pencil or whatever and just scribbling. It teaches the one lesson that is most important--expression. And playing is the only thing that can teach that. It has to be innocent playing or it want work. It can't be restricted by conventions or methods or any other preconceived notions. It has to be an uninhibited, completely intuitive. It has to personal and privately expressionistic. It's not important what others see in the product, what's important is that you feel the act of expressing something--you feel the enjoyment of playing.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:39:46 2014 No.1723412 >>1723409 >>1723408 >>1723403 All this over a "five minute" sketch I still want to see a finished piece from the self taught anon as it might be a better gauge of skill rather than arguing over a doodle

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:40:23 2014 No.1723413 File: 29 KB, 600x327, plebs-plebs-everywhere.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1723408 >>1723410 so out of argument, last option is claiming damage control.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:41:42 2014 No.1723414 >>1723413 >The muscles and bones are fucked up beyond all repair, can't even red line is properly because it would fundamentaly change the drawing >people laugh at you as your try to cover this up >wow they have no arguments lol :^)

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:42:44 2014 No.1723415 >>1723413 Lol, you downplayed how much you said the redline sucked, it WAS damage control. Pleb.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:43:45 2014 No.1723417 >>1723412 The anon said earlier in the thread he doesn't keep finished work, and only draws for like 2 hours a day. Which seems odd considering how much he is arguing here on /ic/, but whatever.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:44:46 2014 No.1723418 >>1723412 >implying someone with such a broken sketch wouldn't have the same problems in a finished work But yeah, I wanna see a real work from him as well.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:45:07 2014 No.1723419 Arrogant French cunt got told.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:46:25 2014 No.1723420 >>1723413 >doesn't even deny it was damage control lel

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:48:16 2014 No.1723421 >>1723415 yeah, it is still a shitty redline, what is there to understand there? >>1723417 yeah, and yet i'm still right. >>1723418 someday >>1723419 do you like grenouille legs ?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:50:06 2014 No.1723423 >>1723421 You haven't explained why it's shitty. You're covering up your impossible anatomy with "it's a dynamic pose", when in reality you just have a super fucked up drawing. The redline is fine, and waaay better than your drawing.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:51:08 2014 No.1723425 >>1723421 >and yet I'm still right Haha, oh yeah, clearly you're right. You haven't been getting rekt like every post.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:51:24 2014 No.1723426 ITT; people who can't draw overfocusing a guy's doodle and try to be right to prove their worth. not using any of his previous sketches. >laughing like never

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:52:09 2014 No.1723427 >>1723421 Why not right now anon? Prove us wrong with a finished work of pure beauty and wonder.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:53:10 2014 No.1723428 >>1723426 >ITT one guy getting butthurt about his drawing being shit, then covering it up by going "well I wasn't really trying why are you nerds analyzing my work for critique on a board labelled "artwork/critique"

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:55:56 2014 No.1723430 >>1723426 >Guy asks for a red line >gets it >is butthurt oh wow.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 02:59:34 2014 No.1723431 >>1722392 >muuh style

Anonymous Wed May 7 03:00:02 2014 No.1723432

What I've learned from this thread:
>the only way to get any form of thorough critique on /ic/ is to act like an arrogant cunt
>make grandiose claims about your skills and abilities
>don't actually post anything bit still talk yourself up like you're king turd of shit mountain
>when you finally post anything there'll be anons clamoring to go ever every pixel to give an incredibly in-depth view on everything that's wrong

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 03:00:59 2014 No.1723433 >>1723432 ... my god, it's brilliant.

Anonymous Wed May 7 03:03:11 2014 No.1723434

>>1723428
>>1723430
people thinking I'm butthurt when i'm literally laughing out loud, you keep going back to that cycle ask for redline>redline is shit>butthurt>damage control when it should be ask for redline>redline is shitty as fuck>nobody can redline properly>I'm still right.

>>1723427
no, i'll post one one day, i'll laugh, code name for it: mr.lonewolf

captcha: niece try

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 03:04:27 2014 No.1723435 >>1723434 >no I'm laughing so hard >the red line is just shitty guys, honest! >It's not better than my drawing in just about every way, and I'm not trying to cover it up Loving ever laugh.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 03:06:18 2014 No.1723436 >>1723434 >still hasn't said why the redline is shit beyond "no it's a dynamic pose, you don't get it!!" Sure thing, pal.

Anonymous Wed May 7 03:13:14 2014 No.1723441
File: 398 KB, 600x696, partyrockin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1723434
>mfw you think saying it makes it true
>mfw the redline wrecked you so hard you're not longer shit talking, but defending yourself, because you realize you're not hot shit, but barely mediocre

captcha: destroyed idea

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 03:18:49 2014 No.1723443 >>1723441 so many recycled arguments over and over, redline was absolutely useless, defending myself ? yeah i've been doing it since post 1 against morons like ya. now, nobody posted something better than my sketches, go ahead and do it.

Anonymous Wed May 7 03:22:07 2014 No.1723445
File: 10 KB, 250x250, boom.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1723443
>redline was useless because I said so
>nevermind it fixed a shit ton of my fucked up anatomy
>even though people have posted things better than my sketches, I'm going to go "lalala I can't hear youu"

You're hilarious dude. Is this performance art? Because, if so, it's pretty funny.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 03:22:41 2014 No.1723446 File: 387 KB, 800x1190, shinya-shokudou-4943963.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I did a resumé of this thread >pic related

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 03:24:38 2014 No.1723447 >>1723446 >still doesn't have a refutation >maybe if I call them jelly, I'll believe it, and I won't cry myself to sleep at night also >jelly >not pudding

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 03:40:59 2014 No.1723449 >>1723447 if his work is so bad, why don't you redline his other figure he did previously on this same thread

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 03:45:54 2014 No.1723453 >>1723449 >gets a redline >no-no I need 2 redlines or I'm not shit You're a mediocre artist. Deal with it.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 03:47:34 2014 No.1723455 >>1723446 It's called summary you collossal loose French cunt.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 03:55:37 2014 No.1723459 >>1723453 true, mediocre, and still better than all of /ic/ united and loomis faggots >>1723455 do you like le baguette

Anonymous Wed May 7 04:06:50 2014 No.1723461

>>1723459
>some guy who has probably read loomis or some other art book corrects your shit with redlines
>other people tell you how your anatomy and proprtions are off, you don't even understand basic shit like where the obliques insert
>at least I'm better than loomis fags hurr durr

Have fun being mediocre forever.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 04:11:40 2014 No.1723464 File: 160 KB, 866x574, Insertions_pubis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1723461 >repeats what has already been said >nobody still posting nothing >try to get the last word >muh loomis time to open an anatomy book.

Anonymous Wed May 7 04:17:51 2014 No.1723467

>>1723464
>Shows an oblique muscle that's going from the ribs to the illum
>hurr durr you don't know anatomy

Listen son, I understand anatomy more than you. I realize you think you're hot shit because you bought a copy of Grey's Anatomy, but that doesn't mean shit if you can't visually identify and draw it. Do you seriously believe your fucking illliac crest can go above your navel? Do you understand why your navel is where it is?

You're a little kid playing at what adults play at, pretending that wasting your time whit self study when you haven't even learned the basics makes you better. Every old master was an apprentice at one point.

Enjoy mediocrity and self delusion.

Anonymous Wed May 7 04:24:24 2014 No.1723468
File: 1.81 MB, 320x240, 1383986168124.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1723467
>grey's anatomy
>arguments about illiac crest being above the navel
>illiac crest isn't above the navel
>owh shiiiiiiit nigga look at your argument it's gone

you're afunny butthurt pleb, you make me enjoy this thread more than anything.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 04:28:37 2014 No.1723471 >>1723468 Not nearly as pleb as you

Anonymous Wed May 7 04:31:49 2014 No.1723472

>still replying to that moron
he will just keep making excuses and shittalk you until the sun rises. it's what happened the last few days, just leave him be.

>implying he will ever deal with the fact that he's mediocre
>implying he will ever stop replying in rage, samefag and post reaction images.

>>1723468
THE DELUSION

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 04:33:33 2014 No.1723473 >>1723471 BWAHAHAAHHA, doesn't have anything to say anymore, "IZ THE ONE WHO SAY BAKA WHO IS THE BAKA, BAKA" this is over.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 04:34:41 2014 No.1723474 >>1723468 >Draws the illiac crest above the navel >tries to argue initially it could be >when proven that it can't be, changes his arguement to "it's not the illiac crest at all" whatever pleb boy.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 04:41:52 2014 No.1723478 >>1723474 >ignores all previous posts ssaying crest by the navel >creates his argument >posts his created argument without anything to back it up >cry cause he has no arguments

Anonymous Wed May 7 04:50:10 2014 No.1723480

>>1723478
>nothing to back it up
>>1723330
>Wow polymorphism means that it's not a matter of proportions

>>1723335
>>1723345
>Conflates the obliques with the illiac crest, laughing about how stupid that anon must be to know anatomy properly

>>1723363
>>1723354
>>1723348
>gets rekt

lel please tell me how I'm making up arguements. Are you actually like deluded?

Anonymous Wed May 7 04:55:57 2014 No.1723481

>>1723434
>i'll post something that's not a sketch someday.
Suuuuuuuuuure you will. And someday you'll spend more time drawing than arguing with people on the interwebs.

I love this thread by the way, amazed it's still going strong. Seems to have touched on all the prescient points
1) artist who's arrogant as fuck
2) angry anons arguing about shit instead of working on art
3) typical ad hominem arguments, circular reasoning, shifting goal posts, muh redline, muh style, muh critique, muh mastery
4) anons and king turd have the stamina of some serious full time neckbeards, i mean check the timestamps, king turd at the very least spends a LOT of time here, if I'm picking up on writing style well enough so do a few of these other anons.

This thread has it all!!! Perfect way to spend my time between churning out shit on the road to gettin gud, getting some laughs on /ic/

I love you all, never change, may this argument never die!

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 04:56:06 2014 No.1723482 I'm skimming this thread, just wanted to say I wish I had a good grasp on anatomy to be able to see the mistakes as quickly as some of you are able to. Someday.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 04:59:50 2014 No.1723485 >>1720173 >draughtsman do you mean draftsman?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:02:21 2014 No.1723486 >>1723485 nevermind, sorry.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:02:23 2014 No.1723487 >>1723485 Given the words are interchangeable I would think so.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:04:30 2014 No.1723490 >>1723487 yeah, I looked it up and saw it got corrected to draftsman, so I assumed it was an autocorrect mistake or something. That, and that I thought a 'draught' was like a measurement of water or something.

Anonymous Wed May 7 05:04:46 2014 No.1723491
File: 1.99 MB, 1852x1344, 1399441021791.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1723480
anyway, pls answer me, If the obliquus externus is attached on it's base to the illiacus crest, where is the illiacus crest when you see an obliqus externus? pic related, TADDDAAAA

>hear this ?
>the sound of your argument crumbling

>>1723481
king turd is making money working at the same time. and having a good laugh while working. ty.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:05:58 2014 No.1723493 >>1723491 Holy shit are you this dense? It also inserts on the linea alba, that's what the bump is on the side there. You have to be trolling, I can't believe someone is this dumb

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:07:41 2014 No.1723495 >>1723491 >All of the pictures except 1, the red lines are way below the navel >in the one case it's not, hes highlighted a bump in the oblique above th crest, and it's still below the navel wut

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:08:07 2014 No.1723496 >>1723491 >making money whilst trolling le /ic/ You truly live like a king then anon, i doff my cap to you sir.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:10:37 2014 No.1723499 >>1723493 wtf is this guy talking about, I'll ignore him, waiting for another answer.

Anonymous Wed May 7 05:13:37 2014 No.1723501

>>1723499
>It's an insertion on the linea alba, a point above the illiac joint that is also a known insertion of the oblique
>lol what is this guy talking about, because I don't understand it it's not a real answer.

Cool Personal Incredulity fallacy, bro

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:14:52 2014 No.1723502 >>1723495 >again, mine is also below the navel, but it seems people can't read or see. wut >>1723496 this shit makes my work 100x times more enjoyable.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:17:17 2014 No.1723504 >>1723502 Funny you would say that, because it's you who can't see. You're so bad at anatomy you can't see the difference between a bone character and a muscle. It's kind of sad.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:18:05 2014 No.1723506 >>1723501 >linea alba >being wrong on every anatomic level possible >wy yuu inore me I kno gray anatomic 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linea_alba_%28abdomen%29

Anonymous Wed May 7 05:21:12 2014 No.1723509

>>1723506
>I don't actually know what an insertion point is
Yes, it inserts there, and then you can have a bump on the side where it inserts.

http://www.getbodysmart.com/~getbodys/ap/muscularsystem/abdominalmuscles/externaloblique/tutorial.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdominal_internal_oblique_muscle

"Insertion Iliac crest, Pubic tubercle, Linea alba"

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:26:00 2014 No.1723514 >>1723506 >making fun of people for thinking the obliques insert on the linea alba holy shit /ic/, how are you always so funny, and so wrong?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:27:08 2014 No.1723515 >>1723509 >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdominal_internal_oblique_muscle Oops, that should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdominal_external_oblique_muscle But they both insert on the linea alba

Anonymous Wed May 7 05:27:19 2014 No.1723516
File: 65 KB, 939x372, linea.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1723509
I know that ty, but I'm talking about the relation obliqus/illiac crest, what the fuck does the linea alba have to do with it ? what's your point in bringing the linea alba in here ?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:28:21 2014 No.1723517 >>1723516 So you realize you can have an insertion point on it, but you refuse to believe that those bumps in professional athletes, way above the pelvic girdle might not be the pelvic girdle? rofl

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:35:24 2014 No.1723521 >>1723517 making no fucking sense from the start, take those pics, and show me what you mean. cause you're showing me the abdomen when i'm talking about the illiac crest, what do you want to show me ? and what does that have to do with the figure

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:37:58 2014 No.1723525 >>1723521 >redline me again Sorry bro, you ain't getting anymore free red lines. An insertion point causes a buldge. I think you know this. I think you know you're wrong.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:46:53 2014 No.1723530 File: 242 KB, 1852x1344, PelvicGirdlesVsNavel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1723521 I've circled all their pelvic girdles. None are above the navel. No Illiac crest could be put above the navel if they're upright.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:48:13 2014 No.1723531 File: 294 KB, 385x445, pffft.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1723525 watchu talkin' 'bout ? why are you talking about the linea alba ?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:49:59 2014 No.1723533 >>1723530 you're really REALLY bad at this aren't you, here >>1723531

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:50:10 2014 No.1723534 File: 47 KB, 582x882, BadPelvicPlacement.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1723530 now here is your drawing, note the girdle being veyr high compared to the navel.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:51:20 2014 No.1723537 >>1723531 >You drew the crest in below the navel What is your point, exactly?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:52:21 2014 No.1723538 File: 323 KB, 656x425, 1357160803207.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1723534

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:53:27 2014 No.1723541 File: 43 KB, 385x445, insertionofObliques.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1723531 Example of the insertion

Anonymous Wed May 7 05:54:01 2014 No.1723542

You'd have to be one retarded cunt to dismiss the discoveries of the masters that came before you. The reason why art is good nowadays (compared to when humankind started to paint) is because we stand on the shoulders of everyone that came before us.

But go ahead and try to learn how to make art completely on your own. You will fail

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:55:08 2014 No.1723543 >>1723537 AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, is my obliquus/crest above the navel in my drawing ? ty, you answered your own question, fucking skyszos in this thread. >still didn't answer about the linea alba btw >>1723534 clown.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:56:26 2014 No.1723545 >>1723543 Nice refutation, the pelvic girdle in that drawing is way out of whack with the navel, not even that anon

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:56:27 2014 No.1723546 >>1723543 How old are you? Not part of this arguement, just wondering.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:56:47 2014 No.1723547 >>1723541 explain.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:57:27 2014 No.1723548 >>1723543 Yes, it is above the navel in your drawing.

Anonymous Wed May 7 05:58:29 2014 No.1723549

>>1723547
Explain what? I just fucking drew it for you. Holy shit. The insertion goes from the middle of the abdomen to the side where we traditionally think the obliques are. The insertion means you need more muscle fibers in the area in line with the anchoring point.

Go read your anatomy book, jesus.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:58:36 2014 No.1723550 >>1723545 show me where >>1723547 20

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 05:59:30 2014 No.1723551 >>1723550 >anon posts a picture circling your pelvic girdle >its like in line with the navel >SHOW ME WHERE rofl

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 06:00:37 2014 No.1723552 >>1723548 your anatomy or eyes are shit, do something before it's too late >>1723549 yeah sure, and ? what does that have to do with the crest and with my sketch.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 06:01:45 2014 No.1723553 >>1723552 Oh, let me play! >You anatomy or your eyes are shit, do something before it's too late Did I totally refute your argument too? Because mine had pictures showing stuff.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 06:02:12 2014 No.1723555 >>1723550 >20 How long have you been studying anatomy and the like?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 06:03:01 2014 No.1723556 >>1723552 Because you originally posted that picture as a refutation to an anon saying the crest can't be above/in line with the navel. None of those men are an example of anatomy you claim is possible.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 06:03:35 2014 No.1723558 File: 143 KB, 450x847, mongols.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1723551 oh well, i'm out, no need to talk about anatomy with people who don't know anatomy. this is the pelvis you mongols

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 06:04:58 2014 No.1723560 >>1723558 >that square bracket >the pelvis totally goes down the femur like this, and where the leg stops when upright is where the crest is that pot calling the kettle black

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 06:07:06 2014 No.1723561 File: 62 KB, 450x847, RealMongols.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1723558 I sure hope that square bracket isn't supposed to be the pelvis, or you look like a moron.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 06:18:13 2014 No.1723568 >>1723561 holy shit this rekt.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 06:20:10 2014 No.1723569 File: 146 KB, 500x864, mongls everywhere.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1723560 >>1723561 >>1723568 is there even something you can do right ?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 06:24:14 2014 No.1723572 >>1723561 why does the trisomic center let their kids on computers ? that was literally a line you had to do, couldn't do it right. gtfo

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 06:24:16 2014 No.1723573 >>1723569 So you're just retarded then. The top of the pelvic girdle is still above the navel. The line from the top of one to another doesn't matter, because YOU STILL DREW THE TOP OF THE ILLIAC CREST ABOVE THE PELIVS. Jesus.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 06:26:05 2014 No.1723574 >>1723573 The illiac crest above the navel*

Anonymous Wed May 7 06:29:08 2014 No.1723576

>>1723573
retarded over 9000 penises. this does it for me.
>still above the navel
do you have eyes ? line it where it gets above it
>THE TOP OF THE ILLIAC CREST ABOVE THE PELIVS.
doesn't know the top of the crest is the top of the pelvis.

ignored from now on, too retarded.

Anonymous Wed May 7 06:38:45 2014 No.1723579

>>1723576
I did, back here
>>1723561

The top of the crest is above the navel. The fact you think that you need to show the perspective on the turned pelvis, despite the top of the crest riding above the navel is asinine. Show me a picture where the top of the crest in a similar angle goes above the naval. I'll wait

>durr what are typos
>>1723574

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 06:42:46 2014 No.1723581 the worst part is actually the ribcage

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 06:43:12 2014 No.1723582 File: 145 KB, 511x822, retarded.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1723579 you're retarded, i'll go away now. keep searching and talking alone.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 06:52:57 2014 No.1723586 >>1723582 >Has said he'll ignore me 3 times, still hasn't. Yeah I believe you. >Now posts the crest as waaay lower as compared to >>1723558 lel

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 06:56:54 2014 No.1723587 >>1723586 Not even that guy, but you just look retarded here.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 07:15:55 2014 No.1723591 >>1723459 but you draw like a shitty loomis, fag.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 7 09:30:35 2014 No.1723637 >>1723485 I'm a brit

Anonymous Wed May 7 15:15:38 2014 No.1723903

>>1723587
Yeah another separate anon here, the original dude is definitely right. It was very clear from the start that his placement of the pelvis was right and all that bullshit about the pelvis and iliac crest above the navel has no basis. Either you are mentally retarded or are a master troll.

Anonymous Thu May 8 17:26:37 2014 No.1724820

>>1720103
>Pick up drawing as a toddler, 3 or 4 or so.
>Go through life being told I'm a really good artist, when in reality I'm pretty terrible, as I learned later.
>Took a commercial art course in senior year of high school, actually started learning proper stuff like contour, critique, observation, etc.
>Later improved skills through two years of art school, didn't like the place itself so I quit, among other reasons that I won't get into.

I try to learn through reference photos along with trial and error, myself.

I admit, I never really gave Loomis a try because his books are apparently rare/super expensive, and I don't like reading PDFs. I tried watching one Vilippu video and my brain could not absorb the info, so I quit.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 03:29:43 2014 No.1725087 >>1723586 confirmation from 3 different people, you are definitely retarded or a troll. why not even both.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 9 03:39:20 2014 No.1725089 >>1723561 laughing, this level of retardition can't be real, must be trolling

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/ic/ - Artwork/Critique