/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.5108463]

>Loomis retroactively BTFOing reference monkeys
based

[Anonymous No.5108470]

loomis was a reference monkey, he's just bullying lower level reference monkies that need extra tools.

[Anonymous No.5108508]

>>5108463
Freehand just means you’re not using guidelines. You can still use references

[Anonymous No.5108512]

loomis is a crutch.

[Anonymous No.5108576]

Ill explain this again for the new guys
This is the hierarchy of creation:

Imagination>refference>grid>tracing>digital>photobashing>photocopy

[Anonymous No.5108583]

Wtf I love loomis now

[Anonymous No.5108585]

>>5108576
Lol

[Anonymous No.5108586]

>>5108576
one of those things is not like the others
>digital
that is just a medium (like watercolors, oil, charcoal, etc), not incompatible with drawing from imagination, for example. You can draw digitally and from imagination at the same time, just like you can paint with oils from reference.

[Anonymous No.5108590]

can you post a higher res version pls?

[Anonymous No.5108593]

>>5108586
It’s bait obviously lol

[Anonymous No.5108616]

>>5108586
Ctrl+z, layering, and all the other trickery puts it below tracing.
"It'S jUsT a ToOl"
Gridding and tracing is a tool as well.

The digital medium begs you to "cheat".
Sure you could not use the undo feature, but that would be like using oil paints and having it look like acrylic. A waste of the medium's magic.

Consider this; when you use a medium, you should use it to do the thing only that medium can do.
Sure, rules are meant to be broken, but whatever...

[Anonymous No.5108619]

>>5108616
before i spend minutes writing an answer, can you tell me if you are trolling

[Anonymous No.5108621]

>>5108616
you are so smart!

[Anonymous No.5108622]

>>5108616
Brian, I eagerly await the day we see
“Middle Aged Depressed Man Commits Suicide After Failing in His Art Career”
as the news headline, but realistically you’d more likely be a footnote, if even that.

[Anonymous No.5108628]

>>5108619
>>5108621
>>5108622
seems he struck a chord, crutchlets

[Anonymous No.5108630]

>>5108463
he is saying this guy was projecting photos and tracing/copying them. Let me tell you a secret: every good artist uses references.

[Anonymous No.5108632]

>>5108619
What would be the troll?

[Anonymous No.5108636]

>>5108630
No he’s actually not. Read the book

[Anonymous No.5108656]

>>5108630
you should use references to study, but not to pose and build a photo collage of your painting before you paint. That's too inflexible a way to work. Maybe if you're an illustrator, its fine, but you're still crippling your ability to design and build a composition out of your head.

[Anonymous No.5108660]

>>5108636
you're a retard if you think he actually means "references are bad!"
Loomis used models for everything

[Anonymous No.5108686]

>>5108636
>”copying paraphernalia”
>not drawing “free-hand”
Aka using a light box or projector to trace, the oldest trick in the book

[Anonymous No.5108688]

>>5108660
At this point you should realise /ic/ is too dumb to figure out that "reference" covers a lot of things, including "photo reference".

Building a model will be a reference, but it' better than a photo, because you actually see in stereo.

[Anonymous No.5108732]

Loomis's imaginative figures look like cartoony crap with no direction behind them. Before the begs crawl up my ass with requests to pyw, these are fine as exploratory sketches for a larger idea. But if you seriously can't see the difference between these and a referenced figure, you have no business commenting on the usefulness of reference.

[Anonymous No.5108754]

Loomis is really making digital-only faglords seethe 70 years into the future and it shows in this thread

[Anonymous No.5108931]

>>5108732
You’re out of your mind these are great

[Anonymous No.5108941]

>>5108463
>how a man works is his own business
based

[Anonymous No.5108947]

>>5108732
WTF? These are great. And I don't even have a problem with reference (it has its usefulness).

[Anonymous No.5108974]

>>5108931
>>5108947
Raise your standards. Do these drawings inspire you? Do they look impressive? Do you want to draw this way?
You can't flex about your sick imaginative drawing skills and then draw a bunch of skinny, limp faceless mannequin men. To be fair I don't think Loomis was intending these to be bragworthy.

[Anonymous No.5108980]

>>5108974
>limp
wrong
>faceless
not the point of this panel in the book
>skinny
they’re just tall

[Anonymous No.5109011]

>>5108974
>Do you want to draw this way?
Sure, some of my favorite artists drew that way (see attached).
I swear, an entire generation OD'd on anime anatomy, exxxtreme capeshit poses and artstation, and can't appreciate the subtlety of just solid drawing skills anymore.

[Anonymous No.5109013]

>>5108980
Okay bro, I now see the error of my ways. Super amazing drawings from that Loomis fellow! Never made a bad drawing, he.
>>5108999
Wally Wood literally traced, copied, and referenced his shit all the time and it shows in the high quality here. Is this supposed to be a gotcha? Do you think I believe this looks bad?
How can you possibly think this is in any way comparable to Loomis's faceless noodle men drawn in 10 minutes from imagination?

[Anonymous No.5109048]

>>5109013
>Wally Wood literally traced, copied, and referenced his shit all the time and it shows in the high quality here.
Definitely, but he also knew how to draw from imagination. I have his sketchbook which has plenty of figures spontaneously drawn.
And like I said before, I have no issue with using reference (or other methods Wood and others have used, even tracing has a place in commercial art).
Like most arguments on here, a false dichotomy is being presented. Even the opening Loomis quote doesn't discount reference. He's just pointing out the importance of freehand drawing. It's obvious that Loomis used reference from looking at many of his finished works.
The reality is that practice drawing from imagination helps in drawing well from reference. Anyone who has traced or drawn from a photo knows how difficult it can be to do WELL. Some knowledge of construction and anatomy is essential, and practice drawing figures like the Loomis ones you posted helps immensely.
So both are necessary to make good representational art.

[Anonymous No.5109051]

>>5108732

This is all better than anything you could ever hope to draw without reference.

[Anonymous No.5109065]

>>5109048
I don't disagree with any of this though. That's why I said Loomis's imagination drawings are fine as exploratory sketches. They're not refined drawings and it shows, and that's okay because Loomis used reference like any sane artist should.
>>5109051
No lol

[Anonymous No.5109077]

>>5108616
There is no cheating in art, who are you cheating? Who wrote the rules and why are they correct/to be followed?

[Anonymous No.5109082]

>>5109077
Yourself

[Anonymous No.5109086]

>>5109082
How am I cheating myself?

[Anonymous No.5109089]

>>5109086
I dont know you

[Anonymous No.5109094]

>>5109089
But you know me well enough to tell me I'm cheating myself?

I'm going to look like a real idiot I posted this reply twice because I think the first one didn't go through

[Anonymous No.5109100]

>>5109094
You can cheat yourself depending on your goals with art as a whole. If you want to achieve mastery of the medium you cant abuse tools and act like you’re actually good at it or learning anything. If you just want to put things out there though it doesnt really matter

[Anonymous No.5109110]

>>5109100
Why not?

[Anonymous No.5109117]

>>5109110
Why not what?

[Anonymous No.5109126]

>>5108616
>when you use a medium, you should use it to do the thing only that medium can do.
this is actually THE most retarded sentence I think I've ever read in my entire life.
>when you ride the bike you should only ride it as fast as the bike can go
like no fucking shit you retard, im not going to be able to press ctrl+z on a fucking oil painting. like how retarded are you to write this useless fucking sentence?
>when you use a pencil, you should use it to draw
LIKE NO FUCKING SHIT YOU RETARD what do you think im going to do with it? shove it up my ass? and if I do its not art anymore? its like neurons are firing in your brain completely randomly and youre just writing fucking words.

[Anonymous No.5109182]

>>5109126
Im guessing you're a digital doodler.
Think of it like exploring a new brush pack and learning what each brush is good for.

>>5109077
sounds like cope.
Why do you think tracers always hide it and are ashamed when discovered

[Anonymous No.5109306]

>>5108463
It's unfortunate that all the pathetic photobashing "concept artists" will never have to experience actual drawing like this

[Anonymous No.5109655]

>>5108463
He was talking about people that only knew how to work from photographs instead of life. Working from life isn't "using reference" in this quote. He's right btw, people who can only copy photos never make it, but nobody on this board even does that so this thread is pointless. Like most things on this board you guys only ever get it half right. Being a xerox machine is bad, but drawing from imagination isn't that great of a goal, it's better to be a master at working from life, but /ic/ thinks drawing a tree in front of you is "copying" for some retarded reason.

[Anonymous No.5109663]

>>5109655
Silence! The King has arrived!

[Anonymous No.5109669]

>>5109655
begone referencefarti

[Anonymous No.5109670]

>>5109655
>it's better to be a master at working from life
Drawing from life seems like a total waste of time.

[Anonymous No.5109678]

>>5109670
it's easier to make money working from life if you're an imaginationlet like me. There's always demand for work done from life (still lifes, figures, portraits, landscapes, cubism, impressonism, etc.) even if it won't get you a job at some big studio doing concept art. You'll at least make a living on art, albeit a boring one. Not exactly /ic/'s idea of making it though.

[Anonymous No.5109681]

>>5109678
>imaginationlet
don't box yourself in so badly man. You can do it if you try. Check out Vilppu, and do lots of drawings and less paintings.

[Anonymous No.5109687]

>>5109681
nah i like working from life, it'd be nice to be able to draw anime or robots or whatever but lately I just wish I could get back to figure drawing sessions. COVID shut down every figure drawing place. This is a digital drawing on did on stream last month, I just don't have much going on in my brain when it comes to "building a world". I'm just like "idk how about a spaceship". My imagination is boring, that's the real problem. Learning to draw from my head won't make the subject matter I draw any more interesting

[Anonymous No.5109689]

>>5109687
if you like working from life then have fun with it, to each his own

[Anonymous No.5109696]

>>5109689
I derive a lot of satisfaction looking at something in front of me and trying to draw it well because my brain is the size of a pea. It's relatively comfy even though nobody ever asks "Are you ok retard?"

[Anonymous No.5109704]

>>5109696
idk why you are so self deprecating, many of the so called "old masters" all they did was paint from life

[Anonymous No.5109710]

>>5109670
It’s how you put the knowledge into your head that you pull from when you draw from imagination.

[Anonymous No.5109840]

he was talking about ilya kuvshinov

[Anonymous No.5109951]

Painting from life is overrated. Sure it is more difficult, but painting from a photo will get you at least 85% of the same skills.

Also it is possible the "camera" referred to in the OP is a camera obscura aka a projector.

[Anonymous No.5110431]

>>5109704
the best ones worked their composition from imagination even though they may have used live references for studies towards a finished painting. many times the figures and poses are conceived and drawn mostly from imagination and some of the details filled in by observation. you don't get a school of athens by just sitting your ass down and painting whatever scenery you happened to be in front of.

even back then painting solely from life was seen as inferior to working a composition from imagination.

[Anonymous No.5110459]

>>5110431
I hope this isn’t a weird attempt to compare video game concept art to school of athens

[Anonymous No.5110471]

>>5109696
Did you make this? I like it

[Anonymous No.5110476]

>>5108576
>digital
It wasn't a thing back then so he couldn't have an opinion about that.

[Anonymous No.5111058]

>>5110459
no, just about actual art.

[Anonymous No.5111161]

>>5108576
based

[Anonymous No.5111178]

[Anonymous No.5111206]

>>5111178
>scientifically unfounded

This sounds like it was published by that hack of an anatomy instructor Bammes.

[Anonymous No.5111228]

>>5111206
cope

[Anonymous No.5111230]

[Anonymous No.5111238]

>>5111228
>>5111230
I'd ask Bammes to post his work but he's dead with nothing to show.

I don't even have to ask Loomis. He's got about 40 years of professional illustration out there and books full of them.

[Anonymous No.5111239]

>>5111228
goddamn, I need to actually read loomis beyond the fwap meme book

[Anonymous No.5111258]

>>5111238
The legacy of a great teacher is not his art, but his students :)

[Anonymous No.5111261]

>>5111258
I think you meant to post this one.