/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.4889985]

Is Loomis a meme, or is "Loomis is a meme" a meme perpetuated by people who don't want others to learn how to draw?

[Anonymous No.4889995]

>>4889985
Loomis is a critical resource for both beginners first learning to draw, experienced artists to brush up on their skills, and for faggots like you to make bait threads with.
This is now a study thread.

[Anonymous No.4889998]

>>4889995

[Anonymous No.4890006]

>>4889985
loomis is good, but not every resource/teacher works for everyone. some people might just find it easy to follow other reputable instructions and resources, but most of the people complaining are just too lazy to apply themselves to anything

[Anonymous No.4890030]

Loomis, Proko, and the rest are all meme answers (but correct ones) to meme questions.
You see if someone asks "How do I draw?" Someone replies with "Loomis." In the same vain as
>What do I do to bulk as a first timer?
>SS+GOMAD
On /fit/
Because you see no one already invested in art asks this. Everyone who does not know what to do or what path to take is told to that because it's just what works, but no, for anyone who takes art seriously, they won't even know who Loomis is until they get on the board in the first place and discard him. No one outside of /ic/ will mention him, and everyone who will make it does not view him as a teacher. This is going to come off as extremely pretentious but it's true.
If you don't know how to draw do Loomis because there is a 99% chance you have no goals or creativity of your own to send you forward.
If you know how to draw you don't need Loomis.

[Anonymous No.4890037]

>>4889985
"Loomis is a meme" a meme perpetuated by people who don't want to learn how to draw, themselves.

[Anonymous No.4890041]

>>4890030
>No one outside of /ic/ will mention him
This part is grossly inaccurate. Loomis is mentioned everywhere I go, online and irl.

[Anonymous No.4890048]

>>4889998
this guy always trips me up because of his slight slouch

[Anonymous No.4890263]

>>4889985
it's a dumb meme. Loomis can help you learn to draw but it's not the end all be all for that subject. There are books and methods by other artists too. It's all about trying them all and going with the one you feel the most comfortable with.

>>4890030
>No one outside of /ic/ will mention him

That's pretty damn wrong.

[Anonymous No.4890269]

meme is a loomis

[Anonymous No.4890271]

>>4890030
People parroting these dumb opinions like facts never ceases to amaze me.

[Anonymous No.4890288]

>>4890030
You should have split this into 2 posts. The first half completely correct, and then EVERYTHING else, starting with
>anyone who takes art seriously, they won't even know who Loomis is until they get on the board in the first place and discard him
is 3000% wrong.

[Anonymous No.4890294]

>>4889995
>>4889998
ID of this chad?

[Anonymous No.4890360]

>>4890030
is that cat real?

[Anonymous No.4890381]

>>4890030
>No one outside of /ic/ will mention him
my neighbor is a professional artist and he let me borrow his book about the head and hands when i asked him for help drawing a few years ago

[Anonymous No.4890382]

Loomis for beginners is a meme?

First learn to draw well from non (still non, not people)

Loomis for drawing from imagination is a meme.

It's good for understanding construction, but really any method could work.

Loomis best books are the Creative Illustration one, which is about composition and perspective iirc, and Figure Drawing for all it's worth.

Drawing from imagination is mainly fully grasping perspective.

So yes he is a meme. But also useful for more intermediate or maybe higher.

But I'm still new at this, and am just rehashing stuff I've read/heard from Concept and Illustrator pros.

So basically do what you want.
Try it out. If it doesn't work. Pick up another book, and maybe come back to it later.

[Anonymous No.4890390]

>>4890382
/begs/ shouldn't give advice. Really. It hurts more then it helps

[Anonymous No.4890406]

>>4890382
>>4890390
True. But people should also stop mentioning Loomis and specific people and instead talk about concepts

[Anonymous No.4890407]

Loomis is just one resource. I use the loomis method occasionally but I also use Huston's sailboat head, Vilppu's melon slices and Reilley's concentric circles depending on my needs. For figure drawing Loomis's manniquin hasn't been useful for me.

/beg/s should start with bargue plates instead of loomis. A big /beg/ problem is not using refences and thinking they cam draw from imagination alone with his method.

[Anonymous No.4890436]

How is it a meme exactly? You should try going through the book yourself instead of just relying on the hearsay of others.

[Anonymous No.4890441]

Both Vilppu and Bammes dislike him but Watts and huston like him. Choose whichever teacher speaks more to you and your learning style.
I personally find Vilppu to be a better writer. It is true that loomis’ works were outstanding.

[Anonymous No.4890796]

>>4890441
Huston doesn't use the loomis method and complained that it makes the back of the head the wrong size and loomis always covered it up with big hair.

[Anonymous No.4890824]

>>4889998
i tried lol
>>4889985
Loomis is good, but it's a little complicated for total beginners, I think. learning from Loomis is also somewhat misleading, although he teaches some good fundamentals he also teaches a specific way of drawing which I think clashes with many people's expectations.

[Anonymous No.4890836]

>>4890406
those people /ic/ mention already talk about concepts in depth, which is better than 10 words from an anon explaining how some fundies work

[Anonymous No.4890849]

>>4890824
he teaches construction

[Anonymous No.4890868]

>>4889985
Yes at this point it's a fucking meme.
I don't understand how Loomis became so polarising, his manuals are a decent introduction to figure construction and that's all, it's not the gospel and it's not supposed to magically turn you into a pro overnight, no manual does that.
Niggers on /ic/ would rather spend hours sperging on which manual has the biggest dick instead of actually drawing.

[Anonymous No.4890907]

>>4890382
>Loomis for drawing from imagination is a meme.
If you actually went through Loomis, you know this is wrong.

>But I'm still new at this, and am just rehashing stuff I've read/heard from Concept and Illustrator pros.
lol

[Anonymous No.4890925]

Loomis is a meme if you don't understand it. You don't *need* Loomis to learn how to draw, you need to learn how to see and feel form. If you can see/feel, you can draw.
Loomis, Vilppu, Proko, and everyone else are just paths to help you learn how to see/feel.
Good art skill comes from either being incredibly observant, or having good pattern recognition. Everyone has a different way of developing this and one-line answers like "read Loomis" or "hard round brush" won't magically make you an artist.

[Anonymous No.4890968]

>>4890030
this is the kind of shit they be posting in beg lmao

[Anonymous No.4891003]

>>4890796
Sure, but he speaks highly of the books which he has called excellent even if his method is quite different and much closer to Vilppu's.
Bammes' anatomy book on the other hand attacked loomis and 'figure drawing for all it's worth" directly, not even a backhanded compliment or anything,.

[Anonymous No.4891041]

>>4891003
>Bammes' anatomy book on the other hand attacked loomis and 'figure drawing for all it's worth" directly, not even a backhanded compliment or anything,
another anon. Really? do you remember a page when i can check this out?

[Anonymous No.4891056]

>>4890030
How did this cat do eat? I want a cat like this one

[Anonymous No.4891064]

>>4891041
Page 37 of his anatomy’s for artists’ English language version. He also critiques bridgman before that

[Anonymous No.4891159]

>>4889985
Loomis is a tool, not a rule. ex. Craig Mullins disliked Loomis, but understood why people used him as a resource

[Anonymous No.4891169]

>>4890030
>nobody outside of /ic/ uses him
My teen art class in bumfuck nowhere gave a bunch of resources that included Loomis

[Anonymous No.4891174]

>>4889985
There's an important thing to remember when comparing Loomis to all the other art teachers and contemporaries like Vilppu, Bammes, Bridgman, et al.: Loomis is the only one to have had a successful commercial career. You can easily find completed paintings and illustrations by Loomis.
This isn't to say that makes his method the best, nor that the criticisms are invalid. But his is the only opinion informed by a lifetime of work in the professional world, with consideration for the tastes of his era, under direction of clients, and imbued with a pragmatism necessary to be a productive illustrator. that is something to keep in the back of your mind when reading his books, or critiques of those books from people with a strictly academic background.

[Anonymous No.4891287]

>>4889985
My high school art teacher recommended him.My classwasmade out of 2 split classes , so his students who studied loomis were on another lvl than us the rest.

[Anonymous No.4891424]

>>4890030
>Everyone who does not know what to do or what path to take is told to that because it's just what works, but no, for anyone who takes art seriously, they won't even know who Loomis is until they get on the board in the first place
You’re not wrong.

[Anonymous No.4891425]

>>4891174
Drawing for advertising agencies is no different than any other type of drawing. You're not going to him for professional advise per se. The fundamentals are the same everywhere, from then to now

[Anonymous No.4891460]

>>4890263
Loomis isn't presented as the end all be all though. The meme is used to pelt idiots that don't want to read the sticky, or the general OPs, or check the catalog, and instead post their misshapen symbols asking for advice.
There's no point in getting into a nuanced discussion about the relative strengths of different resources at that point, loomis is fine and it's what they need.
the other anon's analogy to ss/gomad was apt.

[Anonymous No.4891541]

>>4890824
hey that’s pretty cool

[Anonymous No.4891566]

>>4891064
Does he have the walk to back up the smack talk?

[Anonymous No.4891568]

>>4891566
No, and his criticism basically is that Loomis and Bridgeman are American.

[Anonymous No.4892034]

>>4891566
Difficult to say. Bammes is great at what he does but his work is less appealing and harder to find than Loomis’ tho still good. That’s why i said you have to choose whichever art teachers you learn the most out of. In my case it is vilppu.
>>4891568
Not the only criticism. His point is that all the books that /ic/ recommends except for Hogarth’s and probably Vilppu’s, who he didn’t mention but i assume likes for the same reason he digs Hogharths’, are both unscientific and of little instructional value built around diagrams and not understanding of the figure. I don’t entirely agree btw juat trying to present the actual argument he made.

[Anonymous No.4894237]

>>4890030
wtf is this real??

[Anonymous No.4894244]

>>4890030
Someone should make an edit but with an asaro/loomis head on the cat.

[Anonymous No.4894256]

>>4889985
I heard a ton of japanese people swear by it so I think it can't be a meme.

[Anonymous No.4894308]

>>4889985
loomis? m-more like coomis
am i right fellas

[Anonymous No.4894431]

>>4890836
Okay let me reword it.
People should be focusing on a resource that works for them for the concept they are trying to learn. I.e. trying out books and moving on if nothing is clicking for them
Say for example, I wanted to learn basic head drawing, I try Loomis, which is okay for me, but maybe I tried Reilly Method before that and was too complicated for me. Or maybe I just need something simple to get me started and give e confidence, and Huston's method made drawing the head from different angles from life click. And then for drawing from imagination, Huston isn't working well for me, so I go back and read Loomis which makes drawing head from different angles work for me.

So basically people shouldn't be bound by one resource for every goal and everything they want to draw.

But rather looking for methods or ways of teaching that work for you in what skill you are trying to work on right now.

Maybe two books describe the same method or concept, but one works for one person but not for another.

No doubt what Loomis is trying to teach is great but it may be that his wording and explanations aren't working for you, so you shouldn't feel obliged to stick with Loomis just because everyone else says so.
For me, Loomis is good to understand what I needed to learn, e.g. construction with Fun With Pencil, but it was not for me. The Steve Huston and Preston Blair books made me get it and understand why it's important and when to use it.

[Anonymous No.4894464]

>>4894431
This. Have a bunch of diverse books. Sometimes the way one author explains it just makes it click. If I find Loomis explanation in a subject lacking, I go to Hampton, then someone else ... Repeat until you understand it.

[Anonymous No.4895791]

>>4890030
Pretty good effort, but you really fucked up with "No one outside of /ic/ will mention him".

[Anonymous No.4895887]

>>4890030
>and everyone who will make it does not view him as a teacher

I mean, I dont think anyone is looking for Andrew Loomis to be their teacher given hes fucking dead. But most artists who have made it will typically reference Loomis in their studies.

[Anonymous No.4896467]

>>4895791
This reminds me, when I was in college I approached my figure drawing teacher and asked him if there was any extra work or extra exercises I could be doing since I wanted to improve. He said something like "Have you been reading anyone? Loomis, Bridgman, Hampton?"
That's when I knew Loomis was not merely an /ic/ meme, and actually he suggested I not study Bridgman's book because it was 'too stylized'

[Anonymous No.4896499]

>>4894256
What they dont tell you is the other shit they do besides loomis

[Anonymous No.4896506]

>>4896499
WHAT they dont get on pro level from just one book????

[Anonymous No.4896507]

>>4889985
The only reason the Loomis "method" got popular was because the market back then was in dire need of advertisment illustrators, who needed to learn to draw fast. Before the 20th century people just studied the skull when they wanted to draw the head.

[Anonymous No.4896536]

>>4896507
It does seem logical to use some simplified construction though right? Obviously it can be done by raw copying but isnt the fastest way to learn something to simplify it?

[Anonymous No.4896758]

>>4889998
>>4889995
let's have a go then