/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Loomis No.3480143]

is loomis a meme or not?

[Anonymous No.3480148]

>>3480143
yes

[Anonymous No.3480156]

>>3480143
no

[Anonymous No.3480158]

>>3480143
yes

[Anonymous No.3480159]

nyeso

[Anonymous No.3480163]

maybe

[Anonymous No.3480178]

Loomis retired!

[Anonymous No.3480189]

Loomis resigned!

[Anonymous No.3480196]

>>3480143
Well let's try shall we?

[Anonymous No.3480199]

>>3480189

How the fuck is that connected to the placement of the highlight? The midtones of flesh tend to be of a richer color than the full light, btw.

[Anonymous No.3480204]

>>3480143
>posts a picture where the Loomis method works
>still asks the question
You're a meme

[Anonymous No.3480214]

>>3480189

So this is the power of color theory...

[Anonymous No.3480402]

>>3480199
When Briggs means “highlight” he means specular highlight
And Briggs specifically analyzes color in opaque forms, his site has very little information about the nature of translucent material (your skin example)

[Anonymous No.3480405]

>>3480143
>draw the rest of the fucking head

[Anonymous No.3480544]

>>3480214
Ehhhhh

[Anonymous No.3480548]

>>3480143

it's a perfectly valid and easily mendable if your desired head has exaggerated features.

[Anonymous No.3480598]

>>3480143
Loomis is a meme because his art instruction is simple, practical, and it works.

[Anonymous No.3480611]

>>3480544

Loomis BTFO

[Anonymous No.3480619]

>>3480189
He's lighting a virtual object with pure white light in a neutral environment. I hope you can see why that's a problem.

[Anonymous No.3480621]

>>3480619
no shit retard, hes discussing color and light, what point are you even trying to make

[Anonymous No.3480623]

>>3480621
That the image is inapplicable in most real world situations?

[Anonymous No.3480629]

>>3480623
>the richest color here is in the full light
>riches color here
>here

[Anonymous No.3480638]

>>3480143
Meme status and veracity are separate qualities. You're asking the wrong question.

[Anonymous No.3480639]

>>3480143
>loobis

[Anonymous No.3480673]

>>3480629

Yeah because a 3d ball rendered with mid 90's phong shading provides such an accurate model of how color works in the real world.

[Anonymous No.3480682]

Shit I can't wait before he breaks down the theory behind the colors in this picture, with this knowledge I will be able to creat worldZ!

[Anonymous No.3480705]

Learn it, but don't use it as a set formula you're never supposed to break.

[Anonymous No.3480897]

>>3480143
Remember that no one on this board can post decent work using the loomeme.

[Anonymous No.3481598]

As an artist no, he is amazing. As a teacher/method, unfortunately, yes.

[Anonymous No.3481632]

>>3480143
>Is loomis a meme?

Yes, but in the literal sense, the same way adviceanimals were technically memes. You may be asking as a proxy for

>Is loomis actually useful learning material?

Which is itself a proxy for

>What would reading Loomis teach me?

Which can be answered.

Loomis is good for a beginner-level intro to a lot of fundamentals. He wrote pretty coherent and well structured books about a lot of art topics. His strength is he mostly shows you examples of what he’s talking about, and strategies to produce similar work to what you’re seeing, rather than just explaining the techniques abstractly.

His book “Fun with a pencil” is good for getting “I literally cannot draw anything” people to “I now draw poorly”, which is an upgrade. The famous “sliced head” is how he begins to teach proportion and quick approximations of anatomy before going into detail.

“Fun with a pencil” covers lots of ground quickly, but leaves out complexity. That can be found in his other books, like “Figure drawing for all it’s worth” and “Drawing the head and hands” where he breaks down these topics in the most comprehensive and granular way possible, each having thousands of examples of unique instructional drawings.

Loomis is qualified to teach as he made a successful living in the advertising industry for years. His techniques emphasize speed, ease, and consistency, based on the assumption that you’re trying to also be a commercial artist. This is refreshing for beginners because it cuts past artsy-fartsy bullshit to say art skill is both learnable and accessible to the layperson with practice.

Loomis wasn’t perfect. He very much was a product of his pre-1950s time. He drew a lot of white men and women, but his depictions of other races are today offensive and crude. Furthermore, his “show, don’t explain” attitude also can be mentally taxing. His teaching, though, stands strong.

[Anonymous No.3481635]

>>3481632
Jeez. And I get told *i* write long posts.
Nice to meet you anon.

[Anonymous No.3481636]

>>3480143
>is loomis a meme or not?
What is a meme?

[Anonymous No.3481639]

>>3481632
>Loomis wasn’t perfect. He very much was a product of his pre-1950s time. He drew a lot of white men and women, but his depictions of other races are today offensive and crude

[Anonymous No.3481643]

>>3481632
I agree with all of this except the last tacted on paragraph. It's not crude, it's much more realistic than the post 50s crusade against offensiveness. Human beings have different features depending on what ethnicity they are.

[Anonymous No.3481653]

>>3481643
Meh. If the other races could fucking draw, their pictures of Whitey would be pretty offensive and crude too.

[Anonymous No.3481900]

How do you guys pronounce Loomis?

One guy told me it was Loo-Miss (like WaterLOO + MISSissipi), but another said it was pronounced Lo-mez (like the spanish surname Gómez). Who was right??

[Anonymous No.3482025]

>>3480143
How is it that you can't tell if you want to learn what he is teaching by just going trough one of his god damn books? IT HAS GODDAM PICTURES SHOWING YOU WHAT THE BOOK IS TEACHING.

How can you be so divorced from the process of drawing that you can't even tell if a book is good or not?
If I were you I would worry more about being so inept than about which books are memes.

[Anonymous No.3482036]

maybe

[Anonymous No.3482050]

>>3481653
there's plenty of asians that can paint and draw just fine. middle easterners are sort of forbidden to recreate human images because of their barbarian religion and africa is just a wild mad max world, so yeah.

[Anonymous No.3482251]

>>3482050
>wtf

[Anonymous No.3482883]

>>3480143
Loomis is a product of his time, station, and particular focus on advertisement art. He is no ultimate authority on artistic expression but merely a man who wrote some good books. If Andrew Loomis is the only name in your library of art instructional texts, then your library is sorely lacking. I'd say include at the very least Gurney, Norling, Robertson, Mattesi, and Bridgman as well and then whatever other authors you think will be useful for instruction in particular media and styles. I want to work mostly in watercolor for finished work (digital tools still being useful in process) so there's certain reference materials (both print and web, handprint.com might as well be a book for how much work went into it and how well it's put together) on how to work with that media that I like that are completely useless to someone who wants to work with a cintiq and photoshop for finished work.

[Anonymous No.3483015]

craig mullins said loomis no bridgman yes so..

[Anonymous No.3483021]

>>3482036
never fails to make me laugh