Online Art Schools

[Anonymous No.4844382]

So we can all agree on these rankings right /ic/?

[Anonymous No.4844384]

>>4844382
https://tiermaker.com/create/online-art-school-ranks-571864

[Anonymous No.4844387]

>>4844382
Youtube in s, shift everything down

[Anonymous No.4844389]

>>4844382
/ic/ in SSS, shift everything else to F

[Anonymous No.4844393]

>>4844382
cgpeers in s, shift everything down

[Anonymous No.4844399]

>>4844382
اين DAB؟

[Anonymous No.4844408]

>>4844382
>Schoolism A

[Anonymous No.4844412]

>>4844389
This. Vilppu vids aren't available anywhere else. The old ones.

[Anonymous No.4844423]

>>4844408
whats wrong with schoolism

>>4844399
this ranking is for art schools tho, DAB is just one guy

>>4844382
just my opinion on new masters, i think the instruction is ok but honestly its a little too old school. new masters goal is just to have an insanely high amount of video hours for advertising purposes, so each lesson is often just hours of watching someone paint/draw while mumbling and its dragged out a ton and really dry. It'd be a lot more effecient if they had a timelapse painting and then have the instructor narrate over what they're doing, and then maybe pause/slow down at crucial moments

[Anonymous No.4844425]

I've been disappointed in every cgma course I've downloaded outside of Ryan Lang's.

NMA is worth the sub for Erik Olson alone

[Anonymous No.4844433]

>>4844425
how does it compare to scott robertson?

[Anonymous No.4844443]

>>4844425
Gary Meyer's course is much better than Olson's. Seriously, Olson's course is padded beyond belief, 21 lessons and no discussion of shadows.

[Anonymous No.4844448]

>>4844423
>timelapse painting
>Kill yourself
Speed painting /drawing is garbage and at the height of their time everyone on here came to that conclusion as well. It's not made for instruction.
Is like watching a speed up of anything else, your liable to miss very important parts

[Anonymous No.4844452]

>>4844448
Who are you quoting?

>your

[Anonymous No.4844509]

>CGMA S tier
>Watts C tier
yep, this was done by a mentally retarded person, good grief most CGMA courses are really bad, only worth the money is of course the feedback, but on schoolism you can get the suscription and get the feedback from the other students for 29 USD and its just the fucking same, since most students share the same mistakes, instead of paying 900 usd, fuck CGMA, and fuck Bobby Chiu for not getting more and newer courses more often, like for example his Nathan Fawkes course on charcoal portrait is the same that is available on LAAFA for 500 dollaroonies, and you can get it for free here on /ic/ like massive savings right there.

[Anonymous No.4844515]

>>4844382
This is your brain on digital art

[Anonymous No.4844526]

>>4844443
I haven't tried Olsen's course. I saw how long the course was and noped out. I'm enjoying Meyer's course.

[Anonymous No.4844533]

>>4844443
is not even an art course, is just rambling about drawing and being an artist, imagine paying for that shit.

[Anonymous No.4844538]

>>4844533
Are you having a stroke?

[Anonymous No.4844539]

>>4844538
stroke my cock niggerfaggot.

[Anonymous No.4844542]

>>4844533
This. Half the courses on nma is like this

[Anonymous No.4844547]

>>4844509
>>4844515
How would you rank them then

[Anonymous No.4844552]

>>4844533
Olson or Meyers? Because Olson is about 100 hours of art diagrams.


>>4844443
He definitely does an entire series on shadows, not sure why you think he doesn’t. He goes over damn near everything including the human figure in perspective.

>>4844433
Scott Robertson’s how to draw book is not about perspective, It is a collection of construction methods. It is almost entirely worthless when talking about perspective instruction and understanding.

Olsons course is about understanding the ins and outs of perspective in a formal manner such so that the 3d platform of perspective becomes intuitive and you do not require a formal setup or just eyeball it. It is fantastic.

[Anonymous No.4844555]

>>4844552
I have Olsons course and I never finished it, after the 2 hours mark hearing him ramble I just skipped all together

[Anonymous No.4844556]

>>4844542
I don’t See how could even go through 1 hour of olsons course and think this. Shiit, I’d like him to ramble more but the content is like 99% art instruction.

[Anonymous No.4844558]

>>4844555
Legit don’t believe you, he sometimes rambles about how poor modern perspective instruction in but that’s like 1% of the lectures.


It’s literally hours and hours of him constructing and deconstructing perspective diagrams over and over again. The fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.4844559]

>>4844552
So you'd recommend Olson over Scott?

[Anonymous No.4844567]

>>4844558
my bad I mixed courses, its late here and im tired, yeah NMA Olson course is great

[Anonymous No.4844568]

>>4844552
I went through Olson's entire course myself, he does not go through shadows.

[Anonymous No.4844571]

>>4844559
>So you'd recommend Olson over Scott?
This is a poor question, they don't really compare.
Do you understand perspective?
If you do, go with Scott Robertson
If not, go with Olson

[Anonymous No.4844572]

>>4844559
Absolutely. Honestly, in terms of perspective instruction, Scott’s book is the worst I’ve come across. He’ll introduce concepts that he barely explains, construct diagrams based on techniques that you have to watch a video for online before you realize what you’re doing wrong or can’t replicate it.

It’s a glossary of construction techniques and that’s it, I heard his old gnomon DVD’s are much better.

In terms of books, Joseph D’amelios is the best. Olsons course is by far the best perspective instruction I’ve ever come across though.

I really don’t understand people being intimidated by the length of it, 100 hours is nothing and the notes you’ll take from it are invaluable.

[Anonymous No.4844575]

>>4844567
I was thinking about "the Oatley academy"

[Anonymous No.4844577]

>>4844572
>Scott’s book is the worst I’ve come across. He’ll introduce concepts that he barely explains, construct diagrams based on techniques that you have to watch a video for online before you realize what you’re doing wrong or can’t replicate it.
Yikes, you have low IQ or something
Like you are right in that it is not good for perspective instruction itself, that is why it isn't recommended for begs.
>It’s a glossary of construction techniques and that’s it
I mean what more does one really need?

[Anonymous No.4844582]

>>4844572
>I really don’t understand people being intimidated by the length of it, 100 hours is nothing and the notes you’ll take from it are invaluable.
It's not about being intimidated, it's about being efficient which Olson's course is not. If you're absolutely braindead that you need 10 different demonstrations of the same thing then it's definitely for you.

[Anonymous No.4844585]

>>4844582
This
Read https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/tech10.html
If you cannot get it from this you are NGMI anyway and should find something else to do with your time

[Anonymous No.4844586]

>>4844568
you're right my bad, he mentions doing it a few times so I'm guessing it'll be the last course of the series, which isn't too bad since it's not the hardest thing to do after all the other instruction.

>>4844577
You're trolling but to answer your question honestly, the relationship between CoV, SP, vanishing points and center of vision are the most critical aspects to truly understanding perspective and it becoming intuitive when drawing . ScoRo glosses over those things so vaguely it will only confuse someone new to the concept.

It's less surprising now after going through better instruction that the first few chapters of How to Draw feature so many diagrams from a 3D program when those things would have been easier and just as quick to show off as actual drawings. It's just not a good perspective book at all.

Even Framed Perspective from the same publishing house is a far better resource from a far better draftsman.

[Anonymous No.4844588]

>>4844582
pyw big boy, you talk big shit so you must be very good

[Anonymous No.4844589]

>>4844588
And what would that prove? Posting my work doesn't change the fact that you're a complete brainlet.

[Anonymous No.4844591]

>>4844586
I think what is surprising is that one would not understand said concepts from Scotts book.
Like chapter 2 covers everything you need to know in a practical sense for perspective.
I could see having problems if you are not bright or just plain stupid.
Perhaps if it is the first exposure to drawing or perspective at all and you failed math in middle school

[Anonymous No.4844593]

>>4844582
So.....skip the videos that reinforce the same content if you're confident that you've grasped it???


THe videos and lessons are clearly labeled, in fact, each diagram is in a separate video so you know what you're missing.

Olson himself even stats that he knows that a brighter artist will become frustrated at him explaining the same concept 3 or 4 different ways but he's doing it for the benefit of the beginner.

No competent instructor will explain a concept one way then move on, but if you're ahead.....then skip ahead? You don't have to watch all 100 hours of it.

It's not Olson's responsibility to decide how many notes you should take. These are all pre-recorded for the explicit purpose of the end user consuming it how they'd like.

[Anonymous No.4844602]

>>4844593
>why are people intimidated by 100 hours
>skip the videos then lol
Moving the goal post.

[Anonymous No.4844622]

>>4844602
>Why are people intimidated by 100 hours
>I'm not intimidated, I'm too smart and don't need to watch the same thing explained 4 different ways.
>So skip the clearly labeled videos that go over the same concept
>OMG GOALPOST moved.


Why do I even bother, y'all don't even draw.

[Anonymous No.4844628]

>>4844622
100 hours is a big time investment when I just want to draw girls in bikinis chainsawing aliens.

[Anonymous No.4844630]

>>4844628
The truth is you don't need 99% of the material taught in perspective courses
You are not going to be drafting technical shit. You are not going to be projecting buildings from blueprints onto a page.
99% of the material taught in perspective courses is from technical drafting which has been replaced by 3D software.

[Anonymous No.4844639]

>>4844591
I did not understand the cone of vision at all from robertsons book, it was a lot easier to understand when I watched eric olsen afterwards. To be fair, cov is probably the hardest concept in perspective for a while, was at least the hardest in how to draw.

[Anonymous No.4844653]

>>4844639
Like, how did you not get it?!
I dunno, I guess because I got into art from being curious about perspective puts me at a different place. I got into art after seeing a post about Elements of Perspective while I was going through Euclid's Elements.
So my initial background of art was strictly technical linear perspective coming directly from analytical geometry.
Like I am sitting here right now looking at the CoV section in Scott's book and questioning how one would not understand.
By the way, you don't need to know CoV...like at all. You don't need to know measuring point, CoV, etc, it is not that useful when doing standard illustrations.
I got into art in that technical way and I do not use a majority of the lessons I learned about it.
>does this object look distorted
>ah just move the VPs out a bit
>good enough
No one is going to measure your work and go WOW LOOK HIS WINDOW HERE IS 1.5 METERS WIDE AND THE ONE 35 METERS RECEDED INTO SPACE IS ACTUALLY 2 METERS WIDE
Learning how thinks look intuitively is far more important

[Anonymous No.4844680]

>>4844653
Like what if he put this instead, would that have made it more clear?

[Anonymous No.4844686]

>>4844653
Cool, now in order to win the discussion all you need to do is to post a perspective heavy piece that you’ve done. It needs not to be finished.
We’ll be waiting.

[Anonymous No.4844689]

Watts is pretty good. The core material is solid even though the presentation is outdated.

[Anonymous No.4844707]

>>4844686
Alternatively you can stop being a brainlet who needs 100 hours of hand holding to understand basic principles

[Anonymous No.4844710]

>>4844707
Uhm im not the guy shilling for nma. Im trying to figure out which resource should I pirate so I’ve been following the thread.

Still waiting on your perspective heavy work.

[Anonymous No.4844711]

>>4844707
>weeb
>dunning kruger
>smug attitude with no enough IQ to back it up
the whole bundle I see, PYW NIGGERFAGGOT

[Anonymous No.4844713]

>>4844711
>can't understand CoV from a simple diagram
>calls others dunning kruger
lmao @ ur life

[Anonymous No.4844717]

>>4844707
>im just3smart5you since im a mathematician
>W-what do y-you mean post my work

[Anonymous No.4844719]

>>4844710
> which resource should I pirate
Andrew Loomis - Successful Drawing

[Anonymous No.4844720]

>>4844717
>can't retort
>just shitposts some more

[Anonymous No.4844726]

>>4844719
Went through it already.
It is solid but I am wanting to get gud at perspective now.

[Anonymous No.4844728]

>>4844726
https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/tech10.html
Then use this, if you already went through Loomis than you know whatever Scott has to teach in his book and I am sure you do not wish to spend 100 hours watching hand holding videos

[Anonymous No.4844737]

>>4844728
Woah this is a great site. You’re right, im about to be 25 so I prefer spending 15 hours reading and 85 drawing rather than following along redundant info.

[Anonymous No.4844755]

>came back
>the geometry whiz still hasnt posted his work

[Anonymous No.4844796]

>>4844755

They never do.

[Anonymous No.4844820]

>>4844737
you're supposed to be drawing along with the olson course, it's almost entirely drawing.

[Anonymous No.4844888]

>>4844796
makes me wonder why all these master technician gods on /ic/ never have anything to back up their toughntalk

[Anonymous No.4844931]

What about Brainstorm? Seems like a great choice now that they even offer online classes with critiques

[Anonymous No.4844936]

>>4844931
Signed up for fall semester, was recommended by a guy I'm in a discord with who took some environmental design classes, (WBx series of classes) raved about them. I'll know first hand in in little over a week

[Anonymous No.4844979]

>>4844755
Are you like legitimately retarded?
I mean this in the sincerest sense, if you can't grasp these principles you are not meant for art.
It is not my fault you are too stupid to grasp simple concepts without a 100 hour course.
>>4844888
Toughtalk??
What fucking planet do you live on dude lol
You people are dumb parrots that cannot provide and argument, the only thing you can do when faced with an opinion you cannot speak against is say pyw pyw caw caw pyw.
Get real, point to single thing I stated that was incorrect you fucking halfwit

[Anonymous No.4844980]

I'm surprised Watts is rated so low. can anyone share why that might be?

[Anonymous No.4844982]

>>4844980
because the guy rating it is a moron

[Anonymous No.4844983]

>>4844980
It is pretty basic stuff. Nothing he goes over is really all that special and most of the lesson time is wasted time. He is inefficient at teaching for video courses. He also does not speak a lot about theory or anything really significant in terms of fundamental principles.

[Anonymous No.4844985]

>>4844983
To iterate, I don't even think watts should be on that chart because I don't think it is even worth the time investment

[Anonymous No.4845000]

>>4844979
pyw

[Anonymous No.4845004]

>>4844983
>nothing he goes over is all that special
>nothing is significant in terms of fundamentals
Going by what you say he has nothing then. Lol no wonder proko is so fucked up

[Anonymous No.4845033]

>>4844979
Stop : butthurt ramblings
Start : posting your work.

Maybe you’re afraid to because you don’t really know perspective?

[Anonymous No.4845177]

>>4844983
>He is inefficient at teaching for video courses.
He even says you can put him on mute. He literally says nothing useful. Always ranting about his daddy problems in high school. I usually never mute anyone even if they say little because it might be important, but says nothing, it's just copy it bro trust me. He even says he did it for 8 years before he thought he was even acceptable

[Anonymous No.4845343]

aaand still no geometric wizard’s work....
baka

[Anonymous No.4845433]

They all have shit and good courses. You are going to waste a lot of time finding out which courses are good for your style of learning and which are useless.
For me I found the Watts videos useless as a new beginner. Then after looking at proko, loomis and drawing from models in real life for a few weeks I found the Watts videos with Jeff really fucking useful because he was basically silently answering all of my nit picky technical questions just by watching him work.

The steps to get use out of all these videos and books is:
1. As you add them to your hoard you should skim through it and either write down or remember the general contents/format/fundamentals covered.
2. If the art looks good but you dont think its useful yet, store it away for later. If the art looks shit and you dont think its useful just delete it. If the art looks good and you can see a way tos tudy with it, use it right away.
3. Draw, draw, draw, draw. As you draw and study your brain will automatically pop up with questions as you struggle. Write down or remember these questions. Think of the videos/books you skimmed through and saved for later and think if any of them would have the answers to these new questions. They probably do.

[Anonymous No.4845566]

>>4844526
>I saw how long the course was and noped out. I'm enjoying Meyer's course.
>>4844555
>I just skipped all together
>>4844593
>You don't have to watch all 100 hours of it.
>>4844628
>100 hours is a big time investment when I just want to draw girls in bikinis chainsawing aliens.
NGMI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://youtu.be/7MV-bJz1dcw?t=1584

[Anonymous No.4845580]

>>4844387
if you want to waste time searching for the right video of what you're learning

[Anonymous No.4845672]

>>4845433
This. Can’t believe people are shitting on Watts. His vids are a stream of gold once you’ve gone through loomis.
Talking bout childhood trauma?? What?? He mostly uses his life experience to draw analogies that are useful to drawing and painting. The most common is to see fundies to the artist as the strength and conditioning regiment to the athlete he was in his youth.

[Anonymous No.4845764]

>>4844382
>hi i'm chris oatley, i love talking about how independent i am and how much i hate disney but somehow i still keep taking jobs from them
why is oatley academy even up there?

[Anonymous No.4845791]

>>4845764
What do they even teach? They don't have art courses, is just mumbo jumbo about the industry and life and an artist, is useless and the course itself is pretty expensive, I learn nothing from that garbage

[Anonymous No.4846509]

>>4845433
based

[Anonymous No.4846602]

>>4844452
Nigger

[Anonymous No.4848661]

you guys are dumb fucking ngmi's
oatley academy? nigga what? gnomon? you into 3d shit bro?how is new masters higher than watts? watts is S you guys are dunces

[Anonymous No.4848667]

>>4848661
Okay nigger

[Anonymous No.4848691]

>>4848661
im the op, desu i just randomly sorted the schools into the tiers to make people seethe and read their own reviews

[Anonymous No.4848940]

>>4848661
>watts
Pyw

[Anonymous No.4850954]

>>4848691
funniest thing is that you might have baited, but there is literally no point in your existence but to provoke people lmao, glad I can now realize how useless that is

[Anonymous No.4851100]

>>4850954

[Anonymous No.4852979]

>>4851100
because you rated an art school that I like low? you are pathetic haha, i'll be on my road to being better at watts, you stay down low buddy

[Anonymous No.4852984]

>>4852979
kneel

[Anonymous No.4853993]

>>4852979
Pyw buddy