Loomid

[Anonymous No.6622711]

>figures are stiff and bland
>text is literally word vomit
>absolutely nothing about gesture drawing
>is outclassed by a literal capeshit book
Why is this book so legendary again?

[Anonymous No.6622716]

ngmi

[Anonymous No.6622722]

>>6622711
Did you just read the first few pages?

[Anonymous No.6622740]

>>6622716
Nah, I'll be fine

[Anonymous No.6622767]

>>6622711
Shakespeare effect. Every western artbook written after Loomis owes a debt of gratitude to him.

[Anonymous No.6624612]

>>6622711
this is a real book, Loomis suck ass

[Anonymous No.6624642]

>>6624612

Nah, this is the real one stop book.

[Anonymous No.6624653]

>>6624642
>Blocks your path

[Anonymous No.6624654]

>>6624612
I'm going through this right now. I chuckled when he started shitting on Loomis

[Anonymous No.6625700]

>>6624654
What does he say?

[Anonymous No.6625710]

>>6624612
Anyone who uses this book is going to make it. It's a promise. Not for beginners, though.

[Anonymous No.6625743]

>>6622740
Who???

[Anonymous No.6625747]

>>6624612
that book is crap, bridgman drew like crap why learn to draw that horrible and deformed crab style???

[Anonymous No.6625749]

>>6624642
that book is crap, bridgman drew like crap why learn to draw that horrible and deformed crab style???

[Anonymous No.6625756]

>>6625749
George was the best

[Anonymous No.6625792]

>>6625700

[Anonymous No.6625820]

>>6625792
>Getting this tilted because you're only a seven and a half heads tall manlet.
Loomis even states seven and a half is more realistic, but 8 just naturally feels better, it's the "artistic ideal". Complaining about Loomis' simplified anatomy lessons is also stupid, because his book isn't intended to be an anatomy book like Bridgman's or Bammes', it's general figure drawing lessons that's more accessible than those two (though Birdgman will definitely improve your figures). It's more about drawing a realistic form of a person, a step above drawing cartoon figures of people.
On a seperate note :

>>6624612
I can't stand when art books have such shit covers. Say what you will about FDFAIW, but it has a great cover that would inspire you to want to draw, Bammes' cover might as well have had a bloody stick figure.

[Anonymous No.6626841]

>>6625743
Search up Vilppu Drawing Manual.


It's basically Loomis if he was good. Hampton and Bridgman are based as well.

[Anonymous No.6626844]

>>6625820
Vilppu was asked about Bammes in his private Facebook group and he didn’t know who he was, but when he googled it and saw the cover he shat all over the book and dismissed the entire thing as worthless lmao

[Anonymous No.6626862]

>>6622722
THAT'S RHYTHM NOT GESTURE U NO READ

[Anonymous No.6626875]

>>6626862
ngmi

[Anonymous No.6626883]

>>6625749
Those drawing come from the massive murals he did for his classes to make sure everyone could see, he attached a pencil to a long stick and drew like that over his head (Which is insanely impressive in it of itself), that's why they look crude and unfinished

[Anonymous No.6627014]

>>6626844
Pics or it didn't happen

[Anonymous No.6627023]

>>6624612
>>6625792
While we're on the subject, do you anons know if Bammes had any notable students? He taught for decades and was professor at the Dresden Acacemy of Fine Arts, and yet nothing shows up.

[Anonymous No.6627048]

>>6626875
wanna bet bro? WANNA BET BRO?! IMA CHANGE THE MF GAME I TELL U, IMA BREAK THE GAME

[Anonymous No.6627052]

>>6627014
His wife checks the facebook and asks him in his stead. The posts are from his wife. I don't want to embarrass her. You can be assured it did happen. Just look at the Bammes cover. It's crap.

[Anonymous No.6627055]

>>6626844
top kek, sounds like a brent eviston moment lmao

[Anonymous No.6627061]

>>6627052
Alright then

>Just look at the Bammes cover. It's crap.
That it is

[Anonymous No.6627063]

>>6627023
IIRC, some of his drawings (or at least, his approach to simplifying bones) are used at the Russian academy.

And those are indeed really good

[Anonymous No.6627066]

>>6627055
>sounds like a brent eviston moment
qrd?

[Anonymous No.6627096]

>>6627066
some guy (most likely brent himself) sometimes comes here to shill his fake course comparing it to loomis and bridgman when any sane person can tell it's bullshit, brent probably made this thread too

[Anonymous No.6627103]

>>6627096
Oh I know about that. Some /beg/s seem to have taken the bait though

[Anonymous No.6627104]

>>6626883
So you're saying I need to adapt to the stick method in order to get out of /beg/?

[Anonymous No.6627112]

>>6625792
Hogartards look at that drawing on the right and say "yep, that looks like a human being and not a deformed, inflated monkey man."

[Anonymous No.6627114]

>>6627096
yeah, Brent's drawings are terrible. Drawing for 20 years, and his figures are still /int/ at best. It's not uncommon though. Joseph Sheppard drew his whole life, into his 80's, and his drawings are terrible too.

The internet was a real boon to drawing skill. So much exposure to good drawing and good book recommendations have made young people a thousand times better than the millennials who grew up having the scavenge libraries and book stores for good drawing books.

[Anonymous No.6627118]

I never understood why Brent spams that blue bird everywhere. It's not even a good drawing

[Anonymous No.6627130]

>>6627118
his course is for beginners so he's trying to sell you that you could draw this by the end of it
reasonably you could since birds aren't the hardest animal to draw or even render

[Anonymous No.6627225]

>>6625792
Loomis was a better artist than Bammes, and his books taught more artists than Bammes's books. There is more to art than anatomy, and a rigidly scientific approach to anatomy does not aid in the production of great art. Anatomical knowledge for artists has to be practical. An artist is not going to sit there with a micrometer every time he draws a figure. Bammes comes across like a real crab here. He's criticizing a book for not doing what it doesn't claim to do in the first place, while it does so many other things very well.

[Anonymous No.6627236]

>>6627225
True. I'd kill for "a facile execution, a slick routine, and money!" To be able to do something excellent, and consistently excellent, which people will pay for, is very difficult.

[Anonymous No.6627241]

>>6627236
Yes. With that money comment, and his digs at Loomis and Hogarth, Bammes is really venting at the supposed "commercialism" of the capitalist USA as versus the perceived artistic purity of his European heritage. Of course, those great works of art by Leonardo and Michelangelo were also commercial long before they became museum pieces.

[Anonymous No.6627311]

>>6627236
>>6627241
It makes more sense when you put into context his writing that in the time of the DDR

[Anonymous No.6628242]

>>6627311
dance dance revolution?

[Anonymous No.6628296]

>>6627241
>those great works of art by Leonardo and Michelangelo were also commercial long before they became museum pieces.
it's false equivalence to compare 20th century commercial art with 15th century commercial art since modern commercial art only exists to be cheap and quick while meeting a minimum standard of quality

[Anonymous No.6628565]

>>6622711
Because Loomis gives a very practical, very overall approach to draw figures using construction that be applied to both realistic things, and more importantly, anime.
Yusuke Murata recommends and even basically thinks of his construction using the methods in Loomis.
What's really great about Loomis though is his approach to use lines and values to lead your eye in composition (in his book, Creative Illustration). If you combine this with his figure drawing book, you have the foundation for all illustration drawing in general. The only thing missing would be to learn formal linear perspective like sources like Erik Olson or Drawing Database.
Those 3 things plus studying artists you like and doing a lotta figure drawing and trying to constantly draw figures in environments is all you need basically.