/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.4296295]

Where I can learn this kind of stuff?

[Anonymous No.4296303]

>>4296295
loomis

[Anonymous No.4296307]

>>4296295
loomis

[Anonymous No.4296311]

>>4296295
loomis

[Anonymous No.4296316]

>>4296295
Well it's from this guy's twitter so there would be a good start.
https://twitter.com/TheFramebyFrame

[Anonymous No.4296318]

by copying it but using your own designs

[Anonymous No.4296320]

>>4296303
>>4296307
>>4296311
Fuck you, Loomis is a dumb fucking meme

[Anonymous No.4296323]

>>4296295
Study cartoons, model sheets are a very good resource

[Anonymous No.4296326]

>>4296320
NGMI

[Anonymous No.4296328]

>>4296323
Based, please gib more like this

[Anonymous No.4296332]

>>4296328

[Anonymous No.4296333]

>>4296332

[Anonymous No.4296334]

>>4296333

[Anonymous No.4296335]

>>4296334

[Anonymous No.4296337]

>>4296335

[Anonymous No.4296344]

>>4296326
Bro I swallowed the Loomis pill for like 4 months. The promise was that "construction" could reduce drawing to a math problem, you just had to learn this algorithm and put the right lines in the right places and bam you could draw anything you wanted. But that's bullshit. If you already don't know how to draw then telling someone "use construction" won't help them draw better, they'll just go from drawing bad looking contour outlines to drawing bad looking boxes and cylinders that are still ugly and out of proportion because, surprise surprise, they still don't know how to fucking draw or where all the boxes and construction lines should go.
At best construction will help someone who already knows how to draw to tighten up their drawings, but it is not itself a foundation. The actual core skill of learning how to draw has to come from a lot of copying and a lot of pure repetition and trial and error, that is the only way, you cannot package drawing as an algorithm and communicate it to someone.
Even if you pyw and it's good and you say "I did this with Loomis construction" I won't even view that as a counterexample because I don't believe that you just read Loomis and then drew that, I believe that you acquired the core drawing skills through other means and then threw some Loomis on top and rationalized it as "wow Loomis really works", when it was actually your prior drawing intuition built up through repetition that was doing most of the heavy lifting.
I don't think construction is totally worthless, I just think it's oversold, that's all.

[Anonymous No.4296352]

>>4296323
>top right square
based Mccracken shitting on john k

[Anonymous No.4296377]

>>4296344
Most based post on /ic/. I've been on the process of learning and I fell for the loomis meme but I felt I was wasting time and effort, now while I'm still using some of loomis techniques, I'm learning by copying and repetition of what I wanna draw and I've been having fun and improving at the same time.

[Anonymous No.4296379]

>>4296352
But the expressions of ren and Stimpy works too, because they are part of the aesthetics of the show, being gross and overdetailed, in the casé of woy doesnt work the same because the flow of the show is different.

[Anonymous No.4296384]

>>4296344
It doesnt work if you are a brainlet, you can literally boost your progress orders of magnitude after learning construction, but if you are a smooth brain monkey that can't draw simple primitives in perspective not even the touch of Raphel himself would save your sorry ass, I mean this board is the vivid example, everybody wants to "render" like this or this other chink, but when the perspective and gesture issue is bringed to the table nobody pays attention, you reap what you sow motherfucker.

[Anonymous No.4296385]

>>4296352
lol even the patented John K finger sag.
There was a tweet where I think McCracken said he would've liked to study under John and John replied and said he would've liked to have studied under Craig. It seems to be long deleted from the internet though.

[Anonymous No.4296387]

>>4296377
Cool man, if you're having fun and seeing gains then that's the best thing. I don't wanna go too far in the other direction and say construction is worthless, I just think it should be treated as more of an advanced topic to be applied only to certain problems, rather than a universal foundation to teach beginners drawing.

[Anonymous No.4296391]

>>4296344
>Punished Anon: One robbed of his time

[Anonymous No.4296397]

>>4296387
I think construction is a very important thing to learn, but I think too many people focus on the rigid side of it rather than using it as a way to feel out your drawings and achieve consistency.

[Anonymous No.4296398]

>>4296384
I don't get why people get so angry when I say that construction isn't a magic bullet. I have not found thinking in terms of construction to be very effective for me. If you have then that's cool, I'm not saying your brain works wrong or anything.

[Anonymous No.4296407]

>>4296398
Motherfucker every fucking artist that deserves the pro badge use construction, each of them, one way or another, the fact the book didnt cured your lack of IQ doesnt mean construction or Loomis don't work, you drolling mongo, stop spreading misinformation, some other fellow beg may read your shit and stagnate for years.

[Anonymous No.4296441]

>>4296407
Let me ask you this, why are people in /beg/ bad even though they're following Loomis? Why are their drawings ugly, unclear, lacking depth, out of proportion, etc, even when they're trying to construct? Is it because they're not constructing hard enough?

[Anonymous No.4296467]

>>4296441
i dont wanna comment on the construction drama, but i think they mean that begs dont know how to construct and theyre still learning?? like they lack knowledge in perspective etc.

i personally think sometimes construction helps, but i doubt any pro artist uses some hardcore construction in every figure and object, that would be really exhausting, i think its better to sketch based on intuition and use construction where you get confused... i dont use construction for body but i do use it for heads because i have this kind of retarded problem where i always make a very unsymetrical face, and this helps. but i can sketch body just okay without it. but yeah like i said i never see any pros on live streams go apeshit with construction, they start with loose sketches

[Anonymous No.4296473]

>>4296334
>>4296335

I like those poses what are fluid and full of energy, my characters tend to be too stiff so i should study animation more.
Was it line of action?

[Anonymous No.4296484]

>>4296473
The problem with study animation is you need to be able to see the fundamentals of animation to learn, if you can't see an anticipation, or follow through your hours of study will only yearn knowledge on gesture, which I think is what you want, animation is an art on itself, si requires fulltime dedication, also is hard and taxing on the brain when you start.

[Anonymous No.4296493]

[Anonymous No.4296494]

[Anonymous No.4296495]

[Anonymous No.4296498]

[Anonymous No.4296501]

[Anonymous No.4296503]

[Anonymous No.4296505]

[Anonymous No.4296508]

Thanks for these comicposter

[Anonymous No.4296518]

>>4296337
I miss this show.

[Anonymous No.4296521]

[Anonymous No.4296539]

>>4296493
>>4296494
>>4296495
>>4296498
>>4296501
>>4296503
>>4296505
Source?

[Anonymous No.4296541]

>>4296344
Imagine being too dumb to understand Loomis
HOLY SHIT HAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.4296543]

>>4296295
loomis

[Anonymous No.4296558]

>>4296539
Seconding this

[Anonymous No.4296569]

It's not from a book but directly from Disney production files, a lot of this stuff has been vanished from the net.

[Anonymous No.4296589]

>>4296505
is there more?

[Anonymous No.4296634]

>>4296589
There is more Disney stuff but it's photo reference for facial expressions.

[Anonymous No.4296660]

>>4296332
Damn I’d say drawing wander is the ultimate litmus test of confident lines. Even as a simple character he’s so easy to screw up

[Anonymous No.4296854]

>>4296295
Read Walt Stanchfields book, he talks about about gesture for animation, and specifically goes into detail about biasing stretched and compressed sides of figures like your pic.
The Tuesday Tips books by griz and norm are also worth checking out.

[Anonymous No.4296877]

>>4296854
Yeah but you have to buy thoose books, I think I Saw them posted here once, but dindt got them at that time.

[Anonymous No.4296892]

>>4296344
>>4296377
You HAVE to use construction. You can't just copy shit for years and expect to be able to draw, it doesn't work like that (I've tried it and it doesn't work). You break down a complex form into simple shapes so that you can recall it later. That's why you have to be able to draw very simplistic shapes before ever learning to copy shit. Then you break down complicated forms using those simple shapes that you can already draw because you've practiced them.
>>4296384
based
>>4296387
retard NGMI if you think drawing spheres, cubes and cylinders is 'advanced'

[Anonymous No.4296894]

>>4296344
Construction is a skill, not a physics formula. You've got to practice it. Even after decades you could still be getting better at structure and form. But if you don't even give the beginner the theory of form and structure (aka construction) they'll improve even slower then they would otherwise. They'll develop bad habits of 2d shape copying and won't be developing an intuition for spacial drawing.

Y'all are fucking dumbasses if you believe this post in the slightest.

[Anonymous No.4296902]

>>4296467
That's because you notice the problems with heads more easier than you do with the body which is why it's much easier to draw the entire human body without a head more perceptibly accurate than it is to just a single portrait. And also why most of /ic/ just skips over head drawing and replaces it with anime faces.
I made a thread a few months ago asking for face references and, even though I bumped that thread twice, it still fucking died with no response at all.

[Anonymous No.4296912]

>>4296894
Yea, I'm not sure why people still think that you have to copy before learning how to construct. That is literally the dumbest shit I ever heard.
My improvement came from simplifying everything into simple shapes rather than starting at some arbitrary place because I have a reference to use a crutch that helps me measure angles.

[Anonymous No.4296919]

>>4296344
I hate to be that guy, and don't take this the wrong way, but I would be interested to see your personal work before construction, after construction, and the point at which you feel beyond construction.

[Anonymous No.4296922]

>>4296892
>You HAVE to use construction.
Weird how the old masters never used construction and drew from life only.

[Anonymous No.4296928]

>>4296295
any good animation book will have some stuff on line of action
search for preston blair / timing for animation

[Anonymous No.4296929]

>>4296922
>the old masters never used construction

Literally false

[Anonymous No.4296930]

>>4296922
Renaissance painters blocked in shapes before painting details, that in itself is a construction of forms

[Anonymous No.4296939]

>>4296919
Fool this man is us from the future, and a timeline of non-success. Seeing his work here has no value if you can't muster faith in construction after his post.

[Anonymous No.4297041]

>>4296344
Who the fuck did you get your info from? The sticky for /ic/ recommends learning to copy before even starting loomis. It recommends Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain by Betty Edwards and Keys to Drawing by Bert Dodson first which have all the basic shit in them.

And even then, what the fuck are you on about. Loomis books are much more than just construction. He covers pretty much every fundamental over multiple books. He repeatedly talks about drawing from life.

It sounds like you just looked at an image of the loomis head construction and didn't actually read any of the books.

[Anonymous No.4297125]

>>4296929
prove it

[Anonymous No.4297146]

>>4297125
First we have to define construction. Pic related.
The bottom "no contruction" is more like "constructed in his head from years of manual construction becoming intuitive". This is what the old masters did. We don't have examples of their student scribbles on cheap, non-archival surfaces. And they probably didn't do construction in the same way as peter han or vilppu or hampton. The construction we have today is almost like a reverse engineering of looking at old masters paintings and drawings, for how to think in terms of form/geometry.
Even if they never ever drew a simple geometic box, sphere, pyramid etc when learning (literally impossible) old masters almost certainly still thought in terms of abstracting the figure into basic 3d forms. You can watch Steve Huston, Glen Vilppu, Karl Gnass or ANY art teacher you respect who does master study videos. They will point out how that artist thought in terms of form abstraction. This artist perferred cylinders, this one spherical, this one blocks etc. And eventually when you learn some more you start to notice it yourself.

[Anonymous No.4297151]

>>4297146
>ywn have mystic eyes of art perception.
Why continue?

[Anonymous No.4297163]

>>4297151
"eventually when you learn some more you start to notice it yourself."
"look at steve huston videos that are literally freely available in a thread on /ic/"
>oh no anon is telling me to watch videos and start drawing oh fuck oh shit I hate drawing I just come here to shit post oh god what do i say oh g-
"m-meh-MYSTICAL BULLSHIT"

[Anonymous No.4297180]

>>4296467
Construction is a tool every artist should learn...and rely less on as time goes on. Of course the anons here fumbling around in the dark regarding art education think every painting starts with it, but that's just /ic ignorance. Look at a painter like Cesar Santos. He doesn't do construction when he does a portrait, he places some landmarks to start, ne refines from there. He's built up skills and confidence to do that, while a beginner would be utterly lost.
Watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38j1-gRCRxU
He's not doing Loomis, but I can tell at some point in his development as an artist, he was taught and used construction, but he's moved past that and can "feel" the form by establishing landmarks, and flowing off them, like how he establishes the brow, and how the eyes flow from them - and note how he says he imagines the drawing before starting, and is looking at shapes, not construction. He's just advanced enough, he doesn't need it anymore - but has it to fall back on.
You don't have to work like he does, it's just an example of an artist who's moved past construction, and can dive into a portrait without it.

[Anonymous No.4297183]

>>4296854
The big Disney book "The Illusion Of Life" goes into even more detail. I own a copy, it's a great book.

[Anonymous No.4297186]

>>4296892
>You can't just copy shit for years and expect to be able to draw
b-but sinix did that and he can draw now

[Anonymous No.4297199]

>>4296922
>Weird how the old masters never used construction and drew from life only.
That's not necessarily true. And, which "master" are you referring to, because there are thousands of them.
If you look at sketches and such from the past, from the greats, yes, they worked mostly from life, but they also used "construction" techniques to solve problems, and to build scenes. Any artist who's working realistically should have it to fall back on - but someone at their skill level can dive in and get close enough from memory and experience, for a sketch. A final painting would have been from a pose, because the work was important enough, and they'd spent time exploring the piece, doing studies and sketches to determine what it was going to be.
I can draw a human figure without reference, because I've been doing it so long. Is it 100% accurate? No, but it doesn't need to be. If I need or want that level of accuracy, then I pose someone, or work from a photo.
Too much emphasis is put on construction here. You SHOULD learn it, and then rely on it less and less as you get more confidence and skill as an artist. I use it, when doing thumbnails and sketches. But when I decide on a final, I'll pose a friend or use a photo for reference. (Getting friends to pose when you're not obsessively doing porn/nude is easy)