/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.3921862]

Loomis did not invent any of the techniques laid out in his books. Additionally, he was not the last person to lay out such techniques, nor were his books necessarily the best attempts to teach said techniques. You guys are romanticizing him because his books are old, but you can go through an entire prestigious art school program and never even hear of Loomis.

[Anonymous No.3921872]

Jesus, shut up about Loomis already.

[Anonymous No.3921874]

>>3921862
>but you can go through an entire prestigious art school program
Or....I could read Loomis and skip paying for that prestigious art school program. Assuming they still exist and are not a few anomalies in the whole world with one having to be lucky to live in the same country one of those elusive schools teach.

Post work. Or better yet, give a subject and I will defend Loomis in a trial by combat. If you draw better than I you might have a point. Until then, Loomis reigns because its good, easy to understand, its widely available and its free.

[Anonymous No.3921876]

>>3921862
i think you need loomis

[Anonymous No.3921877]

>>3921862
shut the fuck up and do your fundies already. Crying about Loomis won't make you learn them. Go Hampton or Hogarth if you don't like loomis.

[Anonymous No.3921878]

>>3921877
This. There are many ways to learn the fundamentals (all of them being practically the same and only differing in the teaching method ironically).

These faggots dont have anything against Loomis, they have it against learning fundies. Loomis is just that obelisk that reminds them to learn their fundies.

[Anonymous No.3921879]

Loomis

[Anonymous No.3921883]

>>3921862
Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis Loomis

[Anonymous No.3921885]

Loomis is just one of the many teachers out there. If you don't like his methods, you can just learn from someone else, what's the point of this thread and what's the point of talking shit about Loomis all the time? It's just one guy.

[Anonymous No.3921889]

I'd love to see a word cloud of all the /ic/ threads for the past year
Loomis would probably be well up there, along with ngmi, post your work and crab

[Anonymous No.3921930]

>but you can go through an entire prestigious art school program and never even hear of Loomis

Partly because "prestigious" fine arts programs are often bullshit scams that don't even teach you how to get good at drawing or painting, while putting you in debt for the rest of your life.

[Anonymous No.3921941]

>>3921862
sounds like somebody needs to read their Loomis

[Anonymous No.3921944]

>>3921877
Neither of them teach perspective or composition. Loomis teaches everything, that's why he's the fuckin' man. Hampton is just a shittier Hogarth, and I'm being completely serious. Hogarth is based af

[Anonymous No.3922004]

<insert prelude of figure drawing for all it's worth here>

nothing personnel faget

[Anonymous No.3922097]

>>3921874
>Or....I could read Loomis and skip paying for that prestigious art school program.

Really? You think one book, that talks about ONE of the beginning aspects of drawing, covers the entire curriculum of an art degree?

LOL.

That's the only legit response to that - laughter.

[Anonymous No.3922101]

>>3921930
Some of them are, in fact, bullshit. The Art Academy here in the US is a scam, it's babysitting rich kids and soaking up that sweet, sweet Federally backed loan cash.

But you can also attend state schools and private art schools like Pratt or the College Of Arts and Crafts in Oakland CA and get a solid education in art. You might have to dodge a lot of modern art bullshit doing it, to concentrate on classic techniques, but you'll walk out with a portfolio that will get you hired.
I know it's customary to shit on art degrees here, for a wide variety of reasons, but not all art schools and programs are a scam - but most of the people here would have no idea what they are, anyway, because they never attended any.

[Anonymous No.3922128]

>>3922097
Does this mean you’re declining his art challenge?

[Anonymous No.3922132]

>>3921862
this guy is actually implying that we think Loomis is the first person to invent constructive figure drawing, perspective, composition, proportions, planes, etc.

incredible.

[Anonymous No.3922150]

>>3922132
You certainly act like you believe that.

[Anonymous No.3922351]

>>3922101
I wasn't saying they were all bad by any means. But you have to be very careful if you go the University route. Worst case scenario you may get instructors who don't give a fuck about anything that wasn't spawned by the modern art period. If thats the case you'll end up learning a lot of bullshit theory and artspeak which really doesn't mean anything while possibly picking up bad painting habits. One of my art instructors said this was the case for him as he got his MFA in painting, but he improved nonetheless because he also had life drawing classes.

[Anonymous No.3922967]

>>3921862
Shut the fuck about Loomis already. Newshits come to this board and pretend like they get it but they don't. Loomis is a meme but the books are still good. You may find the teaching style or the writing to be unsuitable to you but that doesn't mean that the books are bad. There are regularly people shitting on the most recommended books like Loomis, Scott Robertson, Hogarth etc but it's just because they feel dumb while reading the books because they don't get it and they must absolutely shit on them to make up for it, to protect their worthless self.

[Anonymous No.3922971]

*taps mic*
AHEM

...

Loomis

[Anonymous No.3922980]

post this prestigious' school alumni's work

[Anonymous No.3922998]

>>3922980

[Anonymous No.3923012]

>>3921862
Loomis did not help you?
If only there were other instructors out there

[Anonymous No.3923022]

>>3921862
His books are
>free
>good
>found online and irl
>very famous

who cares what you think, Loomis' books work.

[Anonymous No.3923032]

>>3921862
>nor were his books necessarily the best attempts to teach said techniques
Then what, pray tell, IS in fact the best attempt to teach said techniques?

[Anonymous No.3923045]

>>3923032
a response made case by case for each beginner depending on what their goal is, or lack of. You just now were basically asking
>what easy answer could I give to all begs so I dont have to put in the effort
not putting in the effort to help each individual beg is not a bad thing. They might give up 1 month later and made you waste your time. 12 begs like that and you lost 1 year of your teaching time. But giving an 1-fit-all response is not good either. You might give this advice to somebody who doesnt like loomis, and so you might alienate him trying to learn his fundies.

[Anonymous No.3923052]

>>3923032
Robertson is a fuckloads better book on fundamentals, it explains perspective from start to finish in great detail.

Hampton and Vilppu are fuckloads better at teaching anatomy.

Lumis is a meme, just like Gentoo on /g.
He's not terrible but he's not best at anything.
None of his content is original and there are people who are better at regurgitating the academic theory of art.

[Anonymous No.3923057]

>>3923052
Robertson sprints past the line of just "great detail", he goes in to almost every aspect of it, but it's not necessary to know all of that. That book is good for certain people, who think a certain way.

Also, I don't think Loomis teaches perspective? He teaches construction, anatomy and rendering of human/organic things, no? Does Robertson's book even teach those? You've not named ones which are better at regurgitating these things.

[Anonymous No.3923066]

>>3923057
Construction and anatomy are best explained by Vilppu and Hampton.
Too bad Villpu got senile by the time hd videos became a thing, his best videos were on VHS.
The best constructions are in the Hampton's book.

Rendering of anything is also well explained by Robertson.

[Anonymous No.3923237]

>>3923057
Robertson's book are actually very fast paced and don't cover that much detail. If you're a beginner the videos he provides are a must watch to understand what the fuck is even going on because he takes huge steps..

[Anonymous No.3923240]

>>3923066
Many people hate Vilppu's teaching style for his emphasis on feeling forms instead of describing what he means in concrete terms. There is no one teacher for all.

[Anonymous No.3923342]

>>3923057
>Also I don't think Loomis teaches perspective?
I don't care about your argument but that's false and you should know better than to just blurt out things like that

[Anonymous No.3923345]

>>3923342

[Anonymous No.3923348]

>>3923345

[Anonymous No.3923357]

>>3923240
Both Vilppu and Hampton start off with geature and continue into construction in a very similar way. Vilppu is more than just 30 second gestures.

There's no single formal explaination for the gesture, many books and courses have it, nobody explins it. Nobody can even formulate what the fuck a gesture is.

I hated it too until i begun feeling it, i as a technical minded person would formulate it as intuition training.

But thats not all. After gestures Vilppu actually goes into muscule structure and boxy constructions.

[Anonymous No.3923360]

>>3923357
I'm not denying that Vilppu is an effective teacher, just that many people don't like his way of teaching. I think if you really try to understand the teacher you can learn effectively with all of them.