Who here can into Morpho?

[Anonymous No.4346074]

Anyone use this series of books?
I’ve found them quite good. Im surprised there isnt more buzz.

[Anonymous No.4346097]

>>4346074
I really didn't like it desu, I found Hampton, Zarins and Mattesi clearer and more informative

[Anonymous No.4346141]

>>4346097
Well. He has all the little books that go with the main one, and they each add something to the overall approach.
He claims to have learned his approach from a lineage ofmteachers at the Ecole Des Beaux Arts, if that means anything. And he emphasizes quick rather than fussy detailed drawings at the stage of learning he teaches. So I dont see him as competing with other books but adding *something*.
I don’t necessarily think he’s the first guy one should read, although some reviewers say they wish they had found him before Hampton. For straight anatomy - whuch muscles and bones go where and do what, Mattesi might be clearer yes.
Will Weston has Morpho in his fairly short list of books.

[Anonymous No.4346143]

>>4346141
Recommended books

[Anonymous No.4346147]

>>4346074
These books are excellent, especially the one on "simplified forms". His drawings are very clear. I learned a ton from them

[Anonymous No.4346283]

>>4346141
>He claims to have learned his approach from a lineage ofmteachers at the Ecole Des Beaux Arts, if that means anything
>Will Weston has Morpho in his fairly short list of books.
>I don’t necessarily think he’s the first guy one should read, although some reviewers say they wish they had found him before Hampton.
None of these things are indicative of the quality level of these books - but the actual content is.

For the book you posted, as an anatomy book, it is very limited on the angles it presents and doesn't convey depth very well both of which I believe are important when learning anatomy. After I bought this book, I was pretty disappointed in the level of quality and to me it is just a book of anatomy sketches not something I reference.

I saw that there are atleast five other books in the series - maybe the simplified forms one is better because the content can be covered in less detail. However I'm not sure why you would need separate books each dedicated to skeletal landmarks, joints and muscular functions, hands and feet, and fat and skin folds when all of these topics are included in most anatomy books.

TLDR; 6 small books composed of sketches which combined cover less than most individual anatomy books. Save your money.

[Anonymous No.4346342]

>>4346283
Noted.
My point behind mentioning lineage and endorsement is not to convert you but it may be meaningful to others. It’s like if you say “so and so learned and taught at the Art Center and so and so likes his book” that conveys somethimg to people who are trying to learn about that tradition. It also affects how you might interpret the drawings. Some might think Hamptons drawings are ugly and distorted as shit. Does that mean YOU should save your money and look elsewhere?
If all you see are “anatomy sketches” it may be a reflection of you and not the books or the people who may like them.
If you say “save your money” and others (who also have the books you prefer) say they’re great, thats good for variety of opinion. But you seem to think yours is definitive.

Also the point behind the little books is they a) concentrate on a subject and b) are portable and lay open flat on the table for easy reference.

Anyway, this guy says “save your money” guise, so case closed, right?

[Anonymous No.4346348]

>>4346283
you sound like someone who completely missed the point of constructive drawing and instead wants some shitty "HOW TO DRAW THE ARM FROM THIS ANGLE AT THIS VIEWPOINT ONLY FOR YOU COOL NEW SUPER ANIME FORESHORTENING SUGOIIII WOWW!!!!!!"

you probably also think Loomis is overrated you dumb fucking cunt

[Anonymous No.4346403]

>>4346283

My point in mentioning lineage and endorsement was not to sway you or summarise its contents but to say something about the context from which it emerges. If someone says “so and so studied at the Art Center and so and so vouches for him and likes recommends his book” that may be meaningless to some but for someone who wants to study that tradition it may affect the way they approach and even perceive the content. If you were to go the EDBA, where he trained, this is potentially the way you may be taught. some might benefit, some may not.

Neither the body, or art based on the body exist in a vacuum. A “shitty” diagram or sketch can cause an awakening for the right person at the right time.

You may not like it but it’s certainly intended as more than just a bunch of “anatomy sketches”

Also the small books are focused (for example one just looks at fat) and have a particular type of binding that enables them to lay flat.
Lastly i dont think he intends them as a standalone reference, but as a companion and guide to approaching study from live models along with other resources Etc.

[Anonymous No.4346411]

>>4346348
This.
Also pic related explains the term morphology in the context of his books. Gibberish for some perhaps, for others, perhaps not.

[Anonymous No.4346417]

>>4346348
This.
Also pic related explains the term morphology in the context of his books. Gibberish for some perhaps, for others, perhaps not.

[Anonymous No.4346459]

>>4346348
Don't get so stressed over someones opinion on the internet. I just think it's useful for an anatomy book to show bones and muscles at various angles as it helps me to visualize the form which is how I learn best considering I don't get many opportunities to draw live models. Nothing to do with anime or loomis little buddy.

>you probably also think Loomis is overrated you dumb fucking cunt
I do appreciate loomis (the construction methods are great) however the figure drawing book isn't organized very well in my opinion - so I will always recommend other more modern resources to someone learning figure drawing. Don't be so sensitive buddy.

>>4346403
>A “shitty” diagram or sketch can cause an awakening for the right person at the right time.
I agree and I get what you're saying. If I am trying to learn a concept I will work through plenty of difference resources until it clicks so yeah whatever works for you as an individual, but for me I don't like the morpho anatomy book as I think other books cover the topics in more detail.

[Anonymous No.4347599]

>>4346074
This or Bourgery

[Anonymous No.4347606]

>>4346074
>Morpho
Stop.
Being.
A.
Fag.

There's no such thing as "anatomy for artists"
There is only anatomy.

If an anatomy book as the addendum "for ..." then it's a crappy book.

Delavier and Netter and the only references you need.

[Anonymous No.4347610]

>>4347606
based and caloriepilled

[Anonymous No.4347651]

>>4347606
>There's no such thing as "anatomy for artists"
>There is only anatomy.

Artistic anatomy focuses on form where as medical anatomy on function. There is a small overlap, particularly in the field of plastic surgery and orthodontics, but otherwise the focus is entirely different.

[Anonymous No.4348780]

>>4346074
>mfw I actually took classes with Michel Lauricella
Best teacher I've ever had. Thanks for reminding me I need to git gud to be like him later.

[Anonymous No.4348794]

>>4347606
The ammount of cocks you suck cannot be quantified

What a shitty reasoning. The whole point of this book series is to approach anatomy with the eye of an artist, not with the eye of a physician. It emphasizes shape, direct muscle function (what muscle produces what range of movemrment) and symbolizes the human form with easier to manipulate shapes. It is litterally tailored to help you achieve greater facility in drawing from imagination. And yet you're unhappy with some shitty semantics and wouldnt bother to open the goddamn book and see for yourself.

The ammount of people here not liking it because they expected a book they could just copy for their poses is outright funny. You're supposed to learn from obversation, this book series ARE observational sketches. If anything it's meant to be coupled with actual observation from actual classes with real models.

[Anonymous No.4348805]

>>4346097
>Zarins and Mattesi
Who?

[Anonymous No.4348809]

>>4346074
I use his little Simplified Forms book all the time alongside Hampton's Figure Drawing, I like it a lot.

I'd like to get his Fat and Skinfolds book soon, maybe the bone reference one too.

[Anonymous No.4348827]

>>4348794
shit book bad art

[Anonymous No.4348830]

>>4348805
dw about it, loomis is all you need

[Anonymous No.4348847]

>>4346348
>you sound like someone who completely missed the point of constructive drawing
Not him but point is...to construct a drawing?

[Anonymous No.4348855]

>>4346141
>although some reviewers say they wish they had found him before Hampton
Any specific reasons given?

>>4346459
>the figure drawing book isn't organized very well in my opinion
"Figure Drawing for All It's Worth"? Why?
>so I will always recommend other more modern resources to someone learning figure drawing.
Such as?

[Anonymous No.4348867]

>>4346074
No one wants to buy your books Michel