[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

View post   
File: 69 KB, 718x810, 1e43fbc52d5e6f7c231a2ea0ce5945b8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3658668 No.3658668 [Reply] [Original]

Is Loomis a starting point or a technique? Should I evolve from Loomis or still adhere to it in years to come?

>> No.3658670

>>3658668
You will reach a point where you won't need to adhere to it. This is sort of a non-question because you'll stop using it when you can stop using it.

>> No.3658700

>>3658668
Neither. It's a fundamental.
>>3658670
And you're wrong. If you think you "stop" "using" "Loomis" then you have no concept of what Loomis teaches.
Well that's not true, you may have a very clear concept in your mind.
It's just that you're wrong about it all.

>> No.3658707

>>3658700
Well, no, when someone refers to "Loomis" they tend to, and I think in this case too, refer to the construction techniques he uses. There come's a point where construction isn't necessary. If you want to call me wrong you have to define what we're talking about when we say "Loomis".

>> No.3658708

>>3658707
You're wrong in basically everything you said so I don't think you're worth anyone's time and really should go read Successful Drawing yourself to maybe get a clue.

>> No.3658713

>>3658708
you sound like an idiot. I get what he means.
he means you don't have to use the rigid system on paper. you can do it in your head. you can see how things are spaced so don't need to draw guides.
stop thinking you know everything.

>> No.3658718

>>3658708
>>3658713
this ^ I'm not sure why you're being so pedantic, anon.

>> No.3658750

>>3658713
>>3658718
>stop thinking you know everything.
Irony.

>> No.3658754

>>3658750
I can sense this guy knows what he's talking about. Listen to him if you're not stupid.

>> No.3658770

>>3658750
I don't think I know everything, what I do know is that I've watched professionals draw finished pieces with no construction.

>> No.3658788

>>3658770
They are still using guides, you just don't see it because you don't know how they were trained. The world is bigger than your Hampton and Vilppu.

>> No.3658799

>>3658788
Not him, and I agree with you that most people who are drawing for an exhibition are still well trained and using construction in their mind, but Vilppu is like literally "how to draw constructively" and talks about all that shit.

>> No.3658803

>>3658788
What are these crazy nontraditional training methods that I've never heard of?

>> No.3658807

>>3658788
No they aren't, there is no "guide" they use which you could call construction, construction is a method by which you lay out the relative proportions and overall shape of an object before actually drawing it. The professionals go straight to the drawing part, no superfluous marks. So what is it you're actually talking about? With this huge knowledge you have, you'd think you'd actually be capable of explaining a single thing.

>> No.3658831

>>3658807
You are a goddamn moron and deserve all your artistic faults because you are straight up ignoring all the shit that all the people who can draw talk about.
People ask Kim Jung Gi how to draw like him all the fucking time, and he tells them DO FUCKING LOOMIS BECAUSE IT'S WHAT i'M DOING IN MY HEAD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uylB8djVDxE

>> No.3658834

>>3658831
>BECAUSE IT'S WHAT I'M DOING IN MY HEAD
And there we have it folks, that is exactly what I explained at the start of this thread. Albeit I didn't get my point across too well, but the other anon painted a pretty good picture of what I meant, you seem to have ignored it:
>>3658713

>> No.3658842

>>3658834
You fucking idiots are saying "you don't need to use constructive drawing because you can do constructive drawing". You've completely misunderstand the whole basic fucking fundamental aspect of the fundamental. Grats.

>> No.3658856

>>3658842
It doesn't really matter what you do in your head, if you aren't putting it on paper I don't see that as using the technique you originally learned. You aren't constructing, you're just drawing what you visualise, which is the ultimate goal and the reason you learn the fundies in the first place. All construction methods are stepping stone techniques to aid you in the goal of drawing from visualisation, I think we actually agree on this topic we're just conflating the idea of using Loomis' teachings differently. So for a real answer:

You stop using construction physically as it becomes natural to visualise.

>> No.3658861

>>3658807
Listen noob, none of us here have 20 plus years of professional experience and therefore cannot assess what it feels like to draw anything and everything a client would ask for without laying some kind of underdraw. And even still, the experienced still do a degree of construction. Just not play by play like how you were taught in your torrent lectures. Teachers draw cleanly for the student to understand what they are trying to convey. This does not mean what they are showing you is by any stretch how they normally draw bit what they are visualizing in their head to get to the final image.

And in order to skip the training wheels and 90 ton bells chained to our legs we need to draw as much as them for as long as them.

>> No.3658869

>>3658861
Yep, did I ever deny this? Any of this? I don't think so. Why are you so intent on us disagreeing?

You're right, I'm right. If you need to construct, you construct, you keep using the method you've learned. If it comes natural, and you're able to create a piece without using construction lines, for example if you've drawn figures for years and years and figures in most perspectives are easy to visualise and put down on paper. If you can't do that, you use construction. I've reiterated my point twice here, just so we're very clear.

>> No.3658870
File: 245 KB, 739x488, trump-shell-game.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3658870

>>3658668
In my opinion it's stylization, anybody who tell you to study Loomis for "fundamentals" is lying to you. Everybody have a unique style to draw, but not everybody will grind to find they own way to draw humans(and to polish it).

>> No.3658875

>>3658869
Oh God, a thread where everyone is actually right? Not on my /ic/.

>> No.3658902

>>3658870
Ngmi

>> No.3658945

>>3658856
You are an expert on not really mattering, I'll give you that much. Right up there with completely misunderstanding things and trying to fit your misunderstandings into the pantheon of your headcannon second rate art school bullshit theory on how to draw. Just stop.

>> No.3658976

>>3658945
Cool, anything with substance to say? Or just vacuous rhetoric?

>> No.3658988

>>3658976
Same.

>> No.3659046

>>3658945
>headcannon
you don't just sound like an idiot, you are an idiot