Head drawing

[35yoboomer No.3650624]

Dear /ic/ers, it's the 35 yo boomer again (http://boards.4chan.org/ic/thread/3638443#q3638443).).
I wonder why everyone is obsessed with Loomis (head drawing method, for example)? It's so...IDK, outdated and primitive...itsn't it? Then I stumbled upon Reilly method which is not working (though it's better since giving the idea of the planes of the head) as well, though some people keep pretending.
The only cool way (in order to understand head's construction) I see is to work with low-poly models like pic rel, redraw them with a pencil, play with shades and lights, etc. Like I'm incorporating elements of a sculptor's learning process.

And, I find famous Asaro head is wrong and fake while a lot of people are so excited about it. Pic rel is a much better example (though a bit weird above the brows). Am I wrong?

[Anonymous No.3650626]

>>3650624
well dude, you are wrong. loomis first trains you on how to construct the head from a sphere, then he teaches you about the planes of the face and how you should be constructing those, he also teaches how light and shadow would fall on those planes. how about you try reading the book?

[Anonymous No.3650631]

>>3650624

Hmm. I'd say that it really depends on what you're going for. I think the head you posted is a better thing to study if you're going for a shaded end result like a charcoal drawing or a painting but Loomis is better if you're into line art stuff or quick sketching.
Obviously you'd get the best result by learning all kinds of methods like blocking in with the Loomis method and shading it while thinking in planes...

I really like how how Sinix put it:

"Draw like a painter and paint like a sculptor."

[35yoboomer No.3650633]

>>3650626
Thank you, I've checked his book online (archives.org) and his "planes" and "anatomy" sections are astonishingly weak if you compare to something like Gottfried Bammes did (I've got the latter guy's book).

That's why I decided not to order Loomis's book, but everywhere I go everyone is blathering like "Loomis, Loomis, Loomis" and I don't get why. Their results usually is neither correct nor interesting. But maybe the method (of drawing) is not to blame here.

[Anonymous No.3650635]

Loomis works, old man.

[Anonymous No.3650642]

>>3650635
Actually I understand your frustration. For years I couldn't figure it or myself until I had to pay out the ass for someone to explain it to me.

[Anonymous No.3650646]

>>3650633
The method isn't to blame, its you. The method works, ll depends on the person applying it. Some people have their own methods for drawing the head, completely unique from anyone, and thats because it works for them. What is it that loomis is not providing to you?

[35yoboomer No.3650659]

>>3650646
Well, something to start with, his proportions ideas are wrong. Maybe they're OK for illustration industry, though.

And his method actually is not intended to make you understand the planes, it's just like a chopped ball rotation tutorial (which is, certainly, good for what it's intended to be).

But, of course, since I'm a total toy, I don't have an "opinion", I'm just asking questions here and thank you all for your responses.

[Anonymous No.3650661]

>>3650659
What is wrong about his proportion ideas? They don't match the human head exactly? No one's proportion methods are flat out correct because reality doesn't work like that.

[Anonymous No.3650676]

>>3650624
in my experience, loomis is too vague for me. I need additional guide and landmarks on the face to figure out where to properly place the eyes, nose, ears etc. I've been struggling with this until everything clicks after I discovered the Reilly method and Asaro heads.

[35yoboomer No.3650680]

>>3650661
I understand, but what I mean is something like pic rel (just did it right now). The Asaro head is simply wrong, like it's shot a bit underneath the center and the forehead section is away from the viewer.

The same with the Loomis's proportions and placements, like the eye line is the center of the whole head which is not exactly correct.

[35yoboomer No.3650684]

>>3650676
Thank you, vague is a good word! Thank you for understanding me. Reilly is better (though nobody can tell you his real method and its subtleties since he didn't write a book about his method and you can only rely on someone else's words about it), but actually people DO NOT use the actual lines they are drawing with his method. Isn't it weird?

[Anonymous No.3650688]

>>3650680
Loomis' eye line is not the center of the whole head? It's the center of the sphere you use to construct the whole top part of the cranium, you add the jaw after, from there the eyes are no longer the center. In fact, it seems as thought in the picture you've posted, the eye line is in fact almost dead center of the head?

Loomis' thirds are rough guidelines to get proportions and positioning somewhat right, the rest is up to you and how good you are at molding it to fit your reference. Construction taught like this is not an exact science, because the faces of humans are not exactly the same every time.

[Anonymous No.3650692]

>>3650688
Also forgot to mention that one of the best parts of the loomis method is how much easier it is to draw a head in the correct perspective using the method. Perhaps some methods are better for you, it doesn't really make another wrong, loomis works for many people, and many pro artists still teach it.

[35yoboomer No.3650699]

>>3650688
>from there the eyes are no longer the center
Of course I know that, but thank you anyway.

Everything you say is right, Loomis works for basic illustrations, it's just not enough to get further understanding (without going deeper), IMO, that's all I wanted to say. It's vague, just like another anon here said, and somewhat "flat".

[Anonymous No.3650702]

>>3650699
Well, is it meant to be more than that? So it isn't "wrong", it's just not for you, you want more from something that isn't meant to be more. Loomis' method is great, if you need different or further teaching, find that. But it's not wrong.

[35yoboomer No.3650705]

>>3650702
OK, I agree, nothing should be deemed wrong for as long as it works for intended purposes. Thank you for clarifying.