/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.4422840]

Are we sure Loomis isn't just a meme?

[Anonymous No.4422842]

>>4422840
>meme?
>we

[Anonymous No.4422951]

>>4422840
Looks racist.

[Anonymous No.4422958]

>>4422842
only poofter say "image macro" in full but otherwise you are pretty on point, fuck reddit niggers

[Anonymous No.4422993]

>>4422840
His books went out of print for a reason.

[Anonymous No.4423063]

Here's the truth about Loomis
He's showing you everything you really need to know about figure drawing and drawing in general but it's sort of dated and the way he explains it makes it hard for someone with 0 experience to tease out, personally id watch a video lesson like dynamic sketching first so you can see the fundies in action then come back around to Loomis or Scott robertson

[Anonymous No.4423080]

>>4423063
Interesting, can you elaborate?

[Anonymous No.4423083]

Also, are you talking about dynamic sketching I and II by Peter Han?

[Anonymous No.4423090]

>>4423080
Yea I mean dynamic sketching 1 and 2 mostly because it's visual, if you're not very visually inclined it's difficult to understand what you're trying to do from seeing it in a book. Look at Loomis description of form with the cross sections of objects, that helps obviously but he never gets you into the nitty gritty of it and you never see wrapping lines or contours or just the process of building up organic shapes. Seeing a video of someone breaking down form was more a wake up call to me then trying to piece together Loomis ideas. But again I'm not dissing Loomis the fundies are there it's just not easy for everyone to pick up. Scott robertson is the best for perspective you'll be able to go back to his book over and over cause there's everything u have to know about perspective in it.

[Anonymous No.4423118]

>>4422840
I mean, some of his women there look pretty cute, but most of his stuff is just 'meh' to me.
I'm sure you can find a more modern resource that utilizes his concepts better.

[Anonymous No.4423157]

Don’t let the cartoons fool you. That is just to cater to beginners

[Anonymous No.4423162]

>>4422840
I dropped his book because I really hated these goofy cartoons faces and went with Hampton instead.
It's basically the same thing but explained slightly differently... If you don't like Loomis there are alternatives like Bridgeman, Vilppu etc just check in the artbook thread

[Anonymous No.4423598]

I'm starting to question that this is gonna bring me closer to drawing anime tiddies

[Anonymous No.4423641]

>>4423598
The goal of that book isn't to draw the cartoon faces, it's meant to teach you construction and help you get comfortable drawing.

[Anonymous No.4423671]

>>4423598
instead of turning a sphere with a couple spheres on it into a face with nose and cheeks, you turn the sphere with a couple spheres on it into a chest with tits.

[Anonymous No.4423693]

>>4423598
It's supposed to get you comfortable with the concept of 3d shapes and forms, understanding how features wrap around planes and all that.

[Anonymous No.4423698]

>>4422840
Yes, he is. In both instances. NOW GO GRIND YOUR FUNNY LOOKING SPHERES

[Anonymous No.4423782]

>>4422951
And?

[Anonymous No.4423784]

>>4422840
It’s a meme for copy fags.>>4422842

[Anonymous No.4423785]

>>4422993
And were brought back and became a standard for a reason too.

[Anonymous No.4423803]

>>4422840
it seems like everybody that becomes proficient at realistic drawing -with heavy referencing- automatically becomes shit at stylization

[Anonymous No.4423927]

>>4423598
Loomis' books are too advanced and badly explained, in my opinion. Start out with perspective (Marshall Vandruff's perspective course from the 90s and then Scott Robertson's "How To Draw") and then move on to rendering ("How To Render" by Scott Robertson). After that, Vilppu's and Hampton's stuff.

[Anonymous No.4423975]

>>4423927
>potato heads are too advanced
top kek

[Anonymous No.4423980]

>>4423927
I actually started with How To Draw but it has proven to be too difficult to follow for a smoothbrain like me, even with visual tutorials.

[Anonymous No.4423990]

>>4423975
You do not get the point. If you just grind those heads, you will get next to nothing out of it, except proficiency in drawing potato heads. It's of utmost importance to train yourself to see and depict things in 3D on paper (or screen) accurately. Hence why he should start with perspective and rendering (shadow and light).

[Anonymous No.4423998]

>>4423980
That's why you should start with Marshall's perspective course. He teaches perspective from the ground up. After that, Robertson's "How To Draw" book to go more in-depth. Then, Robertson's "How To Render".

[Anonymous No.4424027]

Of course he's a meme, the guy can't even draw a proper foot.

[Anonymous No.4424079]

>>4423990
you get comfort with using a pencil, a bit of confidence making a drawing that sort of looks like something else, and practice making and combining basic geometric shapes. that's what people should be picking up from fwap.
you need to be able to make a sphere floating in the aether before you worry about putting it in perspective or lighting it.

[Anonymous No.4424088]

>>4423157
The thing he doesn't show is that he is literally working with a model. He didn't come up with any part of that image from imagination. He just uses construction to tighten up the loose ends of observational drawing. The cartoons are literally the only thing Loomis draws from imagination.

[Anonymous No.4424092]

>>4424079
Those heads are already placed in perspective. Which is why I wrote >>4423998

[Anonymous No.4424150]

>>4423090
>Yea I mean
>>4423118
>I mean
Do you?

[Anonymous No.4424293]

>>4423090
>Yea I mean dynamic sketching 1 and 2
You don't happen to have a link?

[Anonymous No.4424362]

>>4422840
everything is ugly af, but those first row heads are particularly unpleasant to look at

[Anonymous No.4424521]

>>4423785
Because they were free, not because they're good.
And they're not the standard of anything. Contemporary working pros and teachers learned from Bridgman, Hampton, Reilly or Buscema.

Loomis is what you give someone you don't want to compete with.

[Anonymous No.4424571]

>>4424521
I feel like you might know what you're talking about, will you expand on those teaching materials?

[Anonymous No.4424576]

>>4424571
Google. If you can't find the books you won't read them anyway.

[Anonymous No.4424596]

>>4424571
He probably doesn't know what he's talking about. Read this: >>4423927 and >>4423998

[Anonymous No.4424762]

i just draw with whatever
hitokaku is good

[Anonymous No.4424811]

>>4423598
once you get into full figure drawing there are a bunch of 30s coomer cartoon girls you're supposed to reverse engineer

keep working at it

[Anonymous No.4424907]

>>4424088
Of course he was working with a model. That's how artists worked back then, even animators.
Commercial artists up to the first half of the XX century were trained in both construction and comparative measurement, and the techniques were tied together because the artist worked primarily from a model. Loomis, like Rockwell and many others, would copy the model first and foremost and then adjust things with construction as they needed. Rockwell did this to exaggerate the gestures and facial features. Bridgman learned from Gerome and they both had strong construction fundamentals despite working with measurement. As photography and later digital media became more widely available and convenient, models became less important.
As much as I like construction, I think it makes no sense anymore. You have an infinite amount of photos, 3D models and other resources you can reference, trace or straight up paste on the canvas. Even in comics it's not a necessary skill anymore (both because you can do that lightning fast, so it works for comics too, and because comics are dying). You don't really need to grasp anything but basic shapes and you're good to go. The only field where construction is really fundamental is traditional animation, but that one's dying too as it is replaced by 3D.

[Anonymous No.4425599]

I also hate loomis except his coomer girls. What is the proper recommendation for maximal improvement assuming abundant effort and at least average ability?

[Anonymous No.4425816]

>>4423162
>>4424521
>If you don't like Loomis there are alternatives like Bridgeman
>Contemporary working pros and teachers learned from Bridgman
>Unironically recommending bridgman on a thread with Fun with a pencil as pic related
Wanna know how i know that you don't understand Loomis or Bridgman?

[Anonymous No.4425869]

>>4425816
Yes

[Anonymous No.4425871]

>>4424596
>he doesn't know what he's talking about
>read other posts that don't know what they're talking about
this thread is a garbage dump

[Anonymous No.4426405]

>>4425871
Make it better. Provide the chad rec to rule them all

[Anonymous No.4426676]

>>4422840
Why'd Loomis like cheeks so much?

[Anonymous No.4426720]

>>4423063
This. This is exactly why people struggle with him

[Anonymous No.4426871]

>>4426720
Alright I’m going to do dynamic sketching I and II and then figure drawing for all it’s worth. Is that plan ok? Do I need the fun with a pencil babby book to deal with his figure drawing book, or will I be fine due to dynamic sketching?