take the bridgeman pill

[Anonymous No.6634894]

Recently took the bridgeman pill
>Literally improving already
Now I see why ic is so full of permabegs

[Anonymous No.6634896]

>>6634894
post your before/after

[Anonymous No.6634900]

>>6634894
> started to actually do the work
> already improving
okay

[Anonymous No.6634918]

>>6634894
Most people who take the "bridgman pill" are symbol drawing. Very, very few people use his books correctly

[Anonymous No.6634970]

>>6634918
How would you suggest that one use them correctly?

[Anonymous No.6634984]

>>6634970
Have a good understanding of anatomy and form, and don't simply copy his drawings but think about his design choices. Ask yourself questions like "why does he emphasize the round vs square contrast? How would it look if I reversed it", and so on. I'm pretty sure Frazetta mindlessly copied Bridgman, which is why he made such silly mistakes

[Anonymous No.6635030]

>>6634984
This post is satire, right?

[Anonymous No.6635033]

>>6634984
>I'm pretty sure Frazetta mindlessly copied Bridgman, which is why he made such silly mistakes
:OOOOOO.jpg

[Anonymous No.6635049]

>>6634984
Kek based. David Finch meme recommendation is also ass. I believe copying it twice will net some hains but nowhere near as mindful study of a part youre interested in at the moment. Like why would I study super detailed hands if I dont draw closeups of hands?

[Anonymous No.6635061]

>>6635049
You don’t know what you don’t know.

[Anonymous No.6635277]

>>6634984
>>6635049
pyw

[Anonymous No.6635283]

>>6635277
they won't. Despite the fact that David Finch is a professional artist, and Bridgman taught Norman Rockwell and Frazetta, they'll still crab them to give themselves an illusion of superiority.

Sad, really.

[Anonymous No.6637495]

>>6635030
>>6635033
I don't understand. What's wrong about that post?

[Anonymous No.6637510]

>>6635283
No one's crabbing on Bridgeman. You just got triggered because of some implied slight to David Finch's shitty guide. It's absolutely retarded for some /beg/ with no prior anatomical knowledge to attempt to decipher those books.

[Anonymous No.6637551]

>>6637495
I'm trying so hard to come up with a clever joke based on arm's length principle, wokeism and Franzetta's tendency to depict naked chick.

But it's too hard, so I'll just be just throwing the ingredients around. Some sort of a meta-post-humor

[Anonymous No.6637799]

>>6637551
The arms are short but somehow it still works. It has that elusive “appeal.” Frazetta often broke anatomy for expressive power. Pedants don’t understand this, and generally can’t produce captivating images no matter how technically proficient they become.

[Anonymous No.6637806]

>>6637799
There’s only like 2 male figures of his including this one with fucked up proportion. My only real issue with Frazetta is that he draws women with a baby’s face and mishapen cellulite asses.

[Anonymous No.6637816]

>>6637799
>The arms are short but somehow it still works.
It doesn't. You just lack good taste and can't see how abysmal it looks.

[Anonymous No.6637845]

>>6637799
>Frazetta often broke anatomy for expressive power.
Why does he have literally all the muscles flexed, all the time? That doesn't make it look expressive, it just makes it seem like his anatomical knowledge was poor. There's little to no muscular contrast in his males figures, which makes them appear like they're made of solid blocks of stone.

[Anonymous No.6637898]

>>6637799
>Frazetta often broke anatomy for expressive power
you must be baiting
> warrior
> alone in pic
> weapon
> decorated helmet
> highly developed musculature
> standing on an upper ground
but
> arms nearly twice as small as they should be, with a poor attempt at having there receed

besides
> captivating images
> expressive power
most of what I've saw of his work are naked chicks: sexually arousing ≠ beautiful

Animators often break anatomy for for expressive power, but that's just not the case here.

[Anonymous No.6637941]

>>6637495
He dared to say mean things about Frazetta's shitty anatomy. There are some tards on here who regard him as an old master.

[Anonymous No.6638009]

>>6637551
lazy, dumb retard

[Anonymous No.6638047]

>>6637510
1. It wasn’t an implied slight. He called it a shitty guide
2. David Finch recommends learning construction and anatomy before Bridgman. Clearly you haven’t read his guide, so how can you call it shit?

I’m tired of all these bad faith arguments. You love to crab, and you’ll always be a crab. Your opinions will always be seen as worthless, until you grow up.

[Anonymous No.6638056]

>>6638009
c'est celui qui dit qui l'est

[Anonymous No.6638107]

>>6638047
Not that anon, I'm >>6634984 but..

You said here >>6635283 that I crabbed Bridgman. Where did I do that? I literally gave the same advice as David Finch, and you shat on my post for.. what? Talk about bad faith arguments.

[Anonymous No.6638179]

>>6638047
He didn't call it a shitty guide. I did. It is a bad guide. He starts off with the Marvel book, then mentions something about anatomy without giving any specific recommendations and jumps straight to Bridgeman. Why Bridgeman before Loomis, and why is perspective recommended after them both? Any /beg/ reading this will probably copy some muscles off a random anatomy book and a few weeks later will start Bridgeman

>crab crab crab
It's funny because I don't even think Finch is a bad artist, I just think his advice is shit in this one instance. Now stop getting your panties in a twist you sissy

[Anonymous No.6638222]

>>6638107
He's probably that fag who's been spamming Finch's guide everywhere

[Anonymous No.6639061]

>>6637495
The earlier version of that painting is much better.

[Anonymous No.6639072]

>>6639061
Imagine him trying to scratch his back...

[Anonymous No.6639109]

>>6634894
I can tell who takes bridgman seriously because all they draw is stiff looking, petted-line manly men figures. What’s with them never evolving beyond practice?

[Anonymous No.6639274]

>>6637816
>>6637845
>>6637898
>>6637941

Facts: Frazetta is one of the most universally admired artists, among both art enthusiasts *and* other artists/illustrators. Even such giants in the world of comic illustration as John Buscema and Mort Drucker looked up to Frazetta (Drucker called him a genius, and he was not alone in that assessment). His originals are sought after by collectors and sell for millions of dollars.
If 4chan basement dwellers whose taste in art doesn't reach beyond over-rendered anime coomer trash (a market now being cornered by soulless AI, kek) turn up their noses at him, that's just another sign of his greatness.

[Anonymous No.6639310]

>>6637941
it just proves again that you don't need perfect anatomy to make it. 99% of people don't give a shit as long as it's not glaringly obvious that it's wrong.

[Anonymous No.6639343]

>>6639274
>Frazetta was a god among men, and if you dare say otherwise you're a basement dwelling weeb loser
Why do you assume anyone here thinks Frazetta was a shitty artist? No one said so, all we did was critique his anatomy, and that other anon poked fun at his subject matter. I don't think his anatomy was good, nor do I find his subject matter compelling, but I do admire his linework and gesture. Why am I not allowed to hold a nuanced view? You're a mouth breathing retard who thinks one must either be a hateful crab or a sycophant fanboy, with nothing in between. This isn't the place for you if you're going to get triggered every time someone says something vaguely negative about one of the artists you worship.

[Anonymous No.6639400]

>>6639343
I think you are the one getting triggered because I was right over the target in my assessment of the crabs here. No one is above criticism but if Frazetta was lousy at anatomy he wouldn’t be revered for a body of work that is probably 90% nude/seminude figures. His anatomy is not the static, medical textbook version, nor the posed bodybuilders of Boris. His paintings are alive. Only the best achieve that. Not worshipping, just acknowledging the guy was a savant. He drew extremely well from a young age despite caring more about baseball and fucking than art, which was a paycheck for him more than a calling.

[Anonymous No.6639414]

>>6639274
>Frazetta is one of the most universally admired artists, among both art enthusiasts *and* other artists/illustrators. Even such giants in the world of comic illustration as John Buscema and Mort Drucker looked up to Frazetta (Drucker called him a genius, and he was not alone in that assessment). His originals are sought after by collectors and sell for millions of dollars.
This board is called Artwork & Critique. This may come as news to you anon, but every now and then people do actually critique

>muh anime
I like anime and Frazetta. What's wrong with that?

>>6639343
He's probably the same fag who gets asshurt about Finch's guide

>>6639400
You do seem extremely triggered anon

>if Frazetta was lousy at anatomy he wouldn’t be revered for a body of work that is probably 90% nude/seminude figures
He's revered because he catered to the comic & illustration crowd who wouldn't know bad anatomy if it hit them in the face.

[Anonymous No.6639426]

>>6639274
>>6639400
This thread is about Bridgman, and hence anatomy. For you to go off on such a tangent because someone mentioned Frazetta's shit anatomy is just plain retarded anon

[Anonymous No.6639434]

>>6639414
>I like anime and Frazetta. What's wrong with that?

Nothing. I like some anime, too. But a lot of posters here think anything that deviates from generic over-rendered anime coomer pinup style is trash. They’re akin to people so used to guzzling Coke and eating candy bars that they poo-poo anything with less than 46 grams of sugar per serving as having “no taste” or being “bitter.”

[Anonymous No.6639492]

>>6639274
Well, I have the right to find a grown-up men drawing weird naked chicks of little artistic interest. Guy's a perve, essentially. And I have the right to comment on poor drafstmanship.

It's not because some guys (I've never heard of btw) think highly of someone that I should automatically walk in their footsteps, especially if I have good reasons no to.

> over-rendered anime coomer trash
I despise coom, am neutral towards anime (some of it is really good, some of it is meh

[Anonymous No.6639546]

>>6634894
bridgman is fucking based, as long as you understand that he's teaching you form AND light in his messy drawings, then you're going to learn a ton

also have to remember that drawing through bridgman doesn't mean you have to copy his drawings as they are, you can use your own construction to apply what he's telling you

AND realise that when david finch says draw the book twice, he doesn't mean draw it in one go and then immediately after, he means study your weaknesses in the book, continue your own studies and creations, and then return to the book later to try your hand at drawing the images with just one look; compiling what you have managed to learn over the past few months or years

[Anonymous No.6639555]

>>6638179
>something something
Great job. You didn’t read the guide. As I thought.

[Anonymous No.6639610]

>>6639555
It appears that he did, but instead of addressing his points you choose to continue your tard rage against some imaginary anti-Frazetta/Bridgman/Finch weeb boogeyman

[Anonymous No.6639617]

>>6639492
>Well, I have the right to find a grown-up men drawing weird naked chicks of little artistic interest.
What's weird about them? And why does it matter if the artist is a grown-up man?

[Anonymous No.6639622]

>>6639434
>>6639617
Frazetta and the weeb coomers draw essentially the same thing. There are even many weebs were are better draftsmen than Frazzy.

[Anonymous No.6639624]

>>6639622
who are*

[Anonymous No.6639625]

>>6639622
>There are even many weebs were are better draftsmen than Frazzy.
Kek, name one.

[Anonymous No.6639629]

>>6639622

[Anonymous No.6639628]

>>6639625
Krenz Cushart

[Anonymous No.6639633]

>>6639628

[Anonymous No.6639635]

>>6639633

[Anonymous No.6639636]

>>6639635

[Anonymous No.6639637]

>>6639628
Now you've really gone and riled him up

[Anonymous No.6639639]

>>6639628
Sorry, nope.

[Anonymous No.6639643]

>>6639628
>>6639629
>>6639633
>>6639635
>>6639636
And Frazetta did these with nib pen, brush and ink. No layers, ctrl-z, line stabilization, etc. If you think Krenz or any digital weeb artist is in the same galaxy, you’re beyond clueless.

[Anonymous No.6639646]

>>6639629
>>6639633
>>6639635
>>6639636
Nice lines but otherwise it's too pedestrian for my liking

[Anonymous No.6639654]

>>6639646
I like Otomo, he’s excellent. Not as skillful a draftsman as Frazetta but still a great artist and storyteller.

[Anonymous No.6639660]

>>6639617
Being obsessed by sex is a psychological problem, it's abnormal, however common it is today. Grown-up men should have better things to do than fantasizing on naked chicks.

It's immature at best.

>>6639643
There's certainly some design and inking skill

[Anonymous No.6639669]

I know this will sound crazy to some of you because understanding that things are not black and white is not common on this board, but it is entirely possible to call Frazzetta a master of his craft AND understand that sometimes his anatomy wasn't the best.

Let's remember that we live in a time period where people only post their best work on the internet. Your faves make shitty drawings too, they just don't post them.

[Anonymous No.6639671]

>>6639635
Why did American artists after the 60s always use this harsh value contrast? It looks like they're perpetually under some streetlight in Gotham city. It's just plain ugly. Japanese artists like Shirahama Kamome and Kaoru Mori may not have been as good draftsmen as Frazetta, but their values are so much more pleasing

[Anonymous No.6639682]

>>6639671
I disagree that it’s ugly. It’s dramatic, and it reads well in black and white printed reproduction, which was a factor in most illustration of that period.

[Anonymous No.6639686]

>>6639669
An important lesson is that anatomy is a means to an end. Frazetta himself said he focused first and foremost on making interesting shapes, compositionally. Anatomical or other inaccuracies are only a problem if they draw attention to themselves as mistakes. It is also possible for something to be “correct” but look wrong, which is worse than being incorrect but looking right. You can take a photo of a hand so that it doesn’t look like a hand. Legs can appear too short due to perspective, etc.

[Anonymous No.6639690]

>>6639660
Because there were no naked people in art before the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.6639695]

>>6639682
>reads well in black and white printed reproduction, which was a factor in most illustration of that period
That was a factor in illustration for centuries, but that harsh contrast is characteristic of post 60s American stuff. I doubt it was because of technical constraints, they probably just thought it looked good and dramatic, as you do.

[Anonymous No.6639700]

>>6639690
Wtf??????????????? You are blind, asshole

[Anonymous No.6639706]

>>6639690
It's incomparable.

Young (male) artists used to be voluntarily deprived from female models, so as to avoid having them being sexually aroused when working, to keep their work from being infused with sensuality.

One can hardly say that Frazetta's depiction of the female form isn't sensual. Compare with the Mona Lisa, a typical non-sensual female depiction.

Sensuality/sexuality ≠ nakedness (yeah, the confusion is harsh today).

[Anonymous No.6639745]

>>6639706
Anon, some of the earliest surviving artworks are fertility idols with huge tits. There are also innumerable paintings of nude women over the centuries that most definitely qualify as sensual/sexualized. See Raphael’s La Fornarina, or the works of Bouguereau, Edward Burne-Jones, Jules Joseph Lefebvre, Henry Fuseli, etc.

[Anonymous No.6639826]

>>6639706
why's there always got to be one ascendant priest larper in these threads who vows to crusade against fornication in the arts despite it being a natural and historical constant

[Anonymous No.6639835]

>>6639610
Who are you talking to? I never said anything about Frazetta. Also, the Finch guide is very clear. Learn the placement of all the muscles. What's so "something something" about that?

Again, this conversation isn't worth continuing. Not with someone who won't take the time to understand my pionts or the Finch guide

[Anonymous No.6639845]

>>6639745
Yeah fertility has little to do with sexualisation. But see below.

>>6639826
> fornication in the arts
Do yourself a favor, go spend a few dozens hours reading some old stuff (Plato - Republic, The Iliad. not even talking about old/new Testament, or going beyond the West), and come back telling me fornication was hold in laudatory terms.

I can tell you for sure, you have no idea, no idea what you're talking about. You don't realize the intensity of the endoctrinement of the sexual "liberation", because you always have knew a world where this was considered the norm. Wokeism by comparison feels like a joke (how can you not laugh in front of a big man with broad shoulder, with fake tits, makeup and heels).

And because this is your norm, you struggle to understand that things haven't always been like that, that nudity has nothing to do with sex, which has nothing to do with marital love, and so forth.

People used to have precise ways of dealing with all these nuances, see for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love..

But people today are very dull, and have been programmed to think with their crotch. When they hear about brotherly love between men in Greece, they think it's an euphemism for homosexuality.

Raphael’s La Fornarina has nothing to do with Frazetta's depiction of women.

[Anonymous No.6639852]

>>6639845
>that nudity has nothing to do with sex
ok but what about the story where the ancient greek man hurled himself off a cliff after trying to fuck a nude statue

[Anonymous No.6639863]

>>6639845
Okay dont get me wrong but isn't the nuance you're talking about because Greeks didn't establish the concept of homosexuality or didn't declare themselves as such? What is the nuance separating a Turkish oil wrestler and Gachimuchi?

[Anonymous No.6639890]

>>6639852
I don't think I need to teach you that humans are faillible, sometimes literally insane.

>>6639863
>What is the nuance separating a Turkish oil wrestler and Gachimuchi?
Intent?

> because Greeks didn't establish the concept of homosexuality or didn't declare themselves as such?
I don't understand the question. But, if you're really curious about such topics, I encourage you to spend a few evenings reading the aforementioned books. Having a clear knowledge of your cultural roots is fundamental to develop sanely as human, it cannot be understated.

But as for drawing, reading a few posts on 4chan won't make you a good drafstman, you have to work for it.

[Anonymous No.6640071]

>>6639845
You keep moving the goalposts, anon. We all know that culture has changed over time, and that modern western culture is crass and vulgar. But let's address the issue at hand.
You say that Frazetta is "sex-obsessed" because his depictions of women are sensual, unlike the Mona Lisa. Okay. What about Bouguereau? Also sex-obsessed? Or are you going to tell me La Vague, with its young nude woman lying on the beach and smiling at the viewer, isn't sensual? Of course, I could give hundreds more examples, from many different artists and spanning centuries.
Pornography, too, has existed since antiquity. Homosexual acts are depicted in Greek vase paintings.
In Greek mythology generally, there is plenty of sex. The Trojan War is said to have started over two men's desire for the same woman.
In Shakespeare's plays, there is sex, rape, violence, cannibalism, mutilation.
Singling out Frazetta as "weird" is very selective of you. His figures (male and female) are indeed sensual, but are typically depicted in scenes of action and danger, which could be seen as ennobling rather than vulgar.

[Anonymous No.6640435]

>>6639695
i wish this was me being surrounded by big booty latinas

[Anonymous No.6640487]

>>6639555
I clearly gave an overview of it in my post which would be impossible if I hadn't read it. I don't know what more you want me to say. I guess you can just keep ignoring my criticisms and go on posting "b-but you didn't read it!".

>>6639835
>the Finch guide is very clear. Learn the placement of all the muscles
Now I see what's going on. You think that this is adequate, and after only having gone through the Marvel book at that. By the way, look through that guide and try to find the words "bone" or "skeleton" mentioned even once. If you do I'll concede.

[Anonymous No.6640507]

>>6640071
Her neck is too long.

[Anonymous No.6640937]

>>6635049
>like why would I study super detailed hands if I dont draw closeups of hands?
Maybe because after drawing them super detailed you have all that information in your brain and can stylize them better by knowing where you need to keep detail and where you can remove it?
I thought that was a common thing, you learn something in detail so that you can make informed decisions on how to simplify it later

[Anonymous No.6640983]

>>6640937
>I thought that was a common thing, you learn something in detail so that you can make informed decisions on how to simplify it later

Its legit the other way around.

[Anonymous No.6641051]

>>6640071
>In Greek mythology generally, there is plenty of sex. The Trojan War is said to have started over two men's desire for the same woman.
Ah, you mean, the war depicted in the Iliad, opening on Agamemnon getting beaten up by Heaven for his crass behavior toward the daughter of a priest?

>Bouguereau La Vague
The forms are honest, I don't see much sensuality here. Nothing like Frazetta's systematic hard-boobs, tight dresses and so forth.

But really, you don't invalidate my original argument much
> Being obsessed by sex is a psychological problem, it's abnormal, however common it is today

Then you guys went on confusing sex and nakedness, and now rehash that some people in history weren't perfect. Well, yeah. I'm unwilling to discuss this any further. You're free to think whatever you wish after all.

[Anonymous No.6641060]

>>6640507
lol that's not her neck.
>what are trapezoids?

[Anonymous No.6641577]

>>6637799
>broke anatomy for expressive power
Oh, so just like Corben then, right? With good panelling added on top of that.
That tends to repel normies or first time readers but once you get the stylisation and the why you understand why he's an international superstar in the comic industry.

[Anonymous No.6641578]

>>6641577
That’s disgusting. It’s no wonder people became weebs after this shit

[Anonymous No.6641582]

>>6641578
Imagine thinking that anime is better than this

[Anonymous No.6641651]

>>6641582
It takes a refined eye to enjoy Corben's artwork. Not everyone is aware of the intricacies of panelling and so on, si it's hard to blame them. As i've said his artwork tends to repel normies and first time readers, picrel.

[Anonymous No.6641657]

>>6641651
I don't think this would ever not be repulsive to me anon. I've seen gore that is more aesthetically pleasing than this nightmare fuel