/lit/ - Literature

>>3407566 here

I think I rambled a bit. What I mean is that if you want to compare, the work of Loomis is close to what you have as a poetry scansion or something like what makes an aria or an overture or whatever. It is a model, rules of composition that work within a frame of work. To /ic/ and illustrators in general, Loomis is great, it covers composition to a poster, anatomy, etc.

But all of those things are, even still, limited. Because in music you can speak of a much more in depth syntax. In writing, linguistics and semiotics are much more complex than scansion, but because it affects writing on another level. In visual arts, the study of these basic signs were done long ago, though we don't pay much attention now and what you have is "round makes a swirl, square is stiff", instead of, say, a Tarot card that is full of symbolism in its composition.

So how can we speak of "technical and theoretical" standpoint for these things? How to talk on "technical excellence" and all that? This is all much more fluid than it appears at first sight.

Loomis barely scratch the arts as a whole and I mean it. If what you want is to draw that sort of thing, for that sort of purpose (that imediate response, naturalism, realism, draw the human figure, etc), he is a good teacher. For all other purposes you'd have other teachers and other techniques and theories that are just heavy on the average student, stuff no one is much interested now that pictures saturate our vision so much.

>wittgenstein claims to have read no philosophy
>"strangely" arrives to similar conclusions

I see nothing strange about it. Sometimes we get to conclusions and just later we discover some other guy said it before you in a similar way. I'd say it would be strange if a man as intelligent as Wittgenstein DIDN'T reach to the same conclusions.

When you think about distant things, this is even more evident. Westerns and Easterns, ancient and modern, obscure and "popular", it's surprising how many times you'll see them getting to the same point, while they appear not to know each other very much. In anyway, supposing we've been "fooled" by men who denied influence, it doesn't matter. What they said, they said for themselves. Picasso stole a lot from african art and he mentioned he did not when he was alive, but later they found a chest full of african art. It didn't diminish his work in any way.

And as far as I know Wittgenstein really did read philosophy, because it's hard for a man like him to stay away from such a thing. But he denies that he took them as a basis for his work, that is, he didn't rely on that influence or went after names to cite or anything like that.

In other words Wittgenstein is like a Bruce Lee for western philosophy. Mind = blown.

Guys.

Guys.

This thread is balls.

ITT: tl;dr the last book you read in the most concise way you can

>>2671399
As I suspected, she was embarassed by the crooked talk we were having at the moment, which was not flowing all that much, even if there was nothing particularly wrong. What is impressive is that she said it through the drawing and in some kind of gentle manner, almost like "I'm sorry, I want you to understand me and I want to understand you, but something is splitting us apart right now".

It's a message in a bottle, an arrow from some place we don't know. I asked you /lit/ to confirm what I perceived at the moment. It was with sorrow that me and her got to understand together that we couldn't understand each other right now. Maybe it's something that we are destined to do, or something that will forever be: one of those tormenting "if" situations of life, but we were talking about communication.

cont.