This ONE image contains all the necessary fundamentals for understanding form.
Prove me wrong.
>inb4 This ain't loomemes though
both hands have a combined total of 6 fingers
loomis teaches you how to unlock the secrets of the 5 fingered hand
hogarth a shit, all his figures look like martian balloon men with no bones doing abstract dance
Burne Hogarth is fine, especially if you like JoJo
He just wants to show you as much of the Prometheans' anatomy as possible
The constructions are short hand (pun intended). If you've lauded Bridgman at any time you can't fault him for that really. In Hundred Hands 3/4ths of Bridgman's plates consist of a skinflap with a vein running through it.
Simple shapes, man. Containing. Volumes. Masses.
And Hogarth is pretty cool. You're not supposed to be copying his figures literally, but analyzing the forms for when you're drawing from life or imagination.
The key is to take a lil' Hogarth and mix it up with everybody you've learned from.
(tips fedora and leaves thread)
/ic/ never thought that hogarth was shit.
He is really good at explaining things, and his book is good. The problem is, his style, a lot of people find it unappealing, and if you learn from him, you are going to pick up on some habits and end up drawing like him. If you don't want to draw like hogarth, dont learn from hogarth, is basically what I mean. I hate the way he does his heads for example.
I never undertood how are you supposed to study something like this.
Do you copy it until you can draw it from memory? Copy it and then try to draw it from different angle? The instructions are always something like "study these drawings". Would it kill them to be one or two sentences more specific?
copying this doesn't teach you anything because the artist already did all the thinking. You don't learn math by copying solved equasions. You look at the equasion, memorize it and then you exercise by using it on unsolved problems.
Understand the simplified shapes they use to break down the complex anatomy and then try to do the same with your own figure studies from life, sculptures, masterpaintings or photos.
It teaches you that you should learn basic 3D forms, like cube, ball, and cylinder, because you can construct everything with them, so you have easy to properly place them in space and render them with light. Don't be a human photocopier, be a human 3D modeling program.
kek that's not how you're supposed to learn math. You look at the equation, then prove it, thereby allowing you to understand how it came to be. Then you can do some problems to understand different ways you can use the equation. Memorization like masturbation, leads to an unfounded self-satisfaction.
You are right about how to study these diagrams though. Its about learning to see first.
Nothing wrong with breaking the arms/legs into more planar blocks than cylinders. That's more a matter of taste, and when dealing with Michelangelo the blocky breakdown is often very appropriate.
But yeah the torso make no sense really, and the blocks elsewhere are all drawn with poor perspective.
How are you supposed to learn any shit that matters if you can't even see the dick? Everyone knows that the dick is the ultimate example of anatomical perfection. Which is why the ancient Greeks, who also invented the golden ratio, made sure that the "phallus" was the centerpiece of all of their most precious artworks, who in themselves are what we define as the origins of modern science.
>kek that's not how you're supposed to learn math. You look at the equation, then prove it, thereby allowing you to understand how it came to be. Then you can do some problems to understand different ways you can use the equation. Memorization like masturbation, leads to an unfounded self-satisfaction.
You cannot apply an equation you cannot recall.
OP here, still haven't seen an image to top Hogarth's. Lets get a single image that contains all the information a beginner needs, so we can post that instead of spamming loomis all the time.
So who draws the best (most pedagogically useful) mannequins? I've been struggling with anatomy and want to put mannequinization over my guestures to help study the anatomical features of the figure.
>Is his book shit or not?
His book contains some useful advice, his exercise on the other hand is rather time consuming, but you could be selective with it.
>nicolaides is shit, look up some of his paintings
Yes, and? That doesnt really matter since what's important is the way how he articulated some important concepts of the fundamentals just like Stanchfield's Drawn to Life.
I dont see a reason to discredit someone that's already proven to be a great mentor. I'm pretty sure you're not the only one who said that since decades ago, but look, his method works for some people. Which direction are you aiming to be?
Dont be a close minded faggot.
>So who draws the best (most pedagogically useful) mannequins?
depends what you mean, nicoliades covers a few topics. probably the villpu manual or hampton for more structured stuff for form generally le mac's youtube videos and scott robertson, for gesture mike mattesai's stuff. villpu is a good all rounder though.
>Being good at math isn't about remembering arbitrary shit.
No one said that. Reading comprehension isn't your strong point I take it. Also, memorizing the way to solve a problem is not "arbitrary shit" you idiot.