>Someone unironically chose Hamm
>No heads in 3/4
>Pictures don't read great majority of time
>abysmal, backwards head construction technique
love him to death but
>no anatomy outside of his video courses
Loomis, no fucking contest. Hampton is only close because his book is in color which is very useful.
>who is the best author
>the only person on the list that covers a variety of artistic subjects is in second to a person that only does anatomy and gesture
Contrarian hipster meme thread. It would only make sense if the question was "Which author has the best book on the subject of anatomy".
Honestly Hampton's approach is probably the best to anatomy alone even though his heads and faces all look the same and all look like fucking neanderthals (I wish I was joking). If it's overall I give it to Loomis for covering EVERYTHING even if he's perhaps not the best at covering any individual thing. Vilppu is the living master so he's definitely worth taking a look at of course, too. Bridgman on the other hand is totally dated. He doesn't draw heads or faces well, and his drawings are essentially visual gibberish a good deal of the time.
Loomis > Vilppu > Hampton > Rest
Bridgman isn't afraid to exaggerate and it makes his pieces so much more interesting to look at, while maintaining the realistic aspect. He's easily top tier in terms of teaching strategy and execution.
Vilppu has helped me the most, not taking anything away from the others.
22. You see, I've refined my palate over the years and don't like broccoli anymore. Literally every other green vegetable is better than broccoli and thats a fact; even brussel sprouts. You aren't a grown up just because you pretend to like that awful vegetable. Eat some cauliflower its the same thing with actual taste
Nobody likes Mario.
And you shouldn't either, go get the best anatomy from Richer, construction from Hampton, form from Vilppu, perspective from Norling, plus composition and storytelling from McCloud.
Or you could get a washed out version of everything stuffed with shitty esoteric rethoric from Loomis.
You're just a bunch of lazy niggers who would rather "study" one bad book than five awesome sources. Loomis is shit as a teacher and the fact that nobody has gotten gud in all the years /ic/ has been a thing should be enough proof as literally nobody ele puts Loomis in such a pedestal.
We all know you haven't read any of the books by any of these authors and that you don't know dick about anything; stop trying force your "anyone but Loomis" meme because it isn't going to work on anyone that doesn't suffer from Microcephaly.
Again, neither of them are authors. You're right about the thread, though. You can almost guarantee that 90% or more of the people that responded to the poll haven't worked through a single art book even close to all the way through by any of these authors, and Bridgman's 100 year old scribbly mess of a book being anywhere near the top tier is proof enough of this.
How about Burne Hogarth
Anyway I read Vilppu and I think it's very great, Loomis is a bit too constrained in its own rules
Glen Keane is a notable artist who studied Hogarth's book, same with Marko D. How people can give him shit for his "exaggerated" style but go on to praise Bridgman I'll never know. A lot of the pages are, in my opinion, unintentionally hilarious though because of the flamboyantly posed muscle men everywhere.
What? That step-by-step shows literally everything. The only changes from 7 to 8 are that the lines were cleaned up, the construction shapes were erased and a tiny bit of detail was added.
The people who coplain about Hamm need an excuse not to think for themselves.
He's extremely barebones and that's good for begginers because it gets you drawing instead of reading irrelevant anecdote.
>But he doesn't teach 3/4th view
If you cannot rotate his construction you're a retard and don't desserve instruction.
1 month of Hamm, 9 months of Vilppu, 2 months of Richer is how you get someone from zero to comissionable in a year.
Loomis is indeed very good but he's not a good teacher. His books only confuse beginners. I remember starting out with Fun With a Pencil because it was in the sticky and had no fucking idea what I was doing. That first sphere exercise was some mindfuckery retarded.
When I read Hampton and watches his videos, everything just clicked for me. Vilppu also has some good videos.
Im currently watching hamptons video series, and it covers perspective well enough for people who know what it is.
I mean i honestly dont feel like you should have everything bundled in 1 book. If you want to learn perspective, you have books that handle that alone.
'Duh I'm Michael Hampton I stole everything I know about drawing the figure from Steve Huston and made a book about it; I hope nobody notices all of my heads and faces look like the same retarded cro magnon whether I'm drawing a male or female duurr'
'Ugga bugga, you buy Michael Hampton book "Figure Drawing Desifn and Invention". Him teach you draw head in right way just like he do! Blog!'
'You still no convinced? Buy book today and see what you missing! Blog!'
Shake my head; can't you see I'm trying to meme over here nigga? Goddamn.
what? do drawing/painting techniques belong to the people who came up with them now? the entire foundation of art education is learning and sharing techniques other people have come up with along with your own ideas or permutations
He also tries to get SJW for no reason at all.
It's pretty important if you're teaching anything to be engaging, Gurney just isn't, compare his blog to David Apatoff's which is basically doing the same thing but way more interesting.
Favourite anatomy book by far. Hasn't been translated yet though.
Was Hampton taught by Huston? Because Huston doesn't have any anatomy books written to my knowledge and Hampton only credits artists who have books written about these subjects, so his students can check them out.
scott robertson teaches you how to draw literally anything through mastery of perspective
pair this with drawing from life under your own direction and you can draw figures with the best of them
the reason so many artists here are stunted is because they think they'll get better at drawing people if they study the human figure to a doctor's level of medical accuracy, while it's important to know what's connected to what, this doesn't teach you shit about actually drawing a figure
>pair this with drawing from life under your own direction and you can draw figures with the best of them
Not really. I mean, you obviously seem to have studied Robertson's book and done life drawing under your own direction and you can't draw figures with the best of them.
Because you posted nothing. You're a /b/-tier retard beginner trying to force a meme based on your own inexperience. If your own art was any good you wouldn't be posting art by KJG to promote Robertson as if they're somehow related; you will never share your 'Loomis-free' mastery because it isn't there.
>the reason so many artists here are stunted is because they think they'll get better at drawing people if they study the human figure to a doctor's level of medical accuracy, while it's important to know what's connected to what, this doesn't teach you shit about actually drawing a figure
They'll never admit it.
/ic/ can't draw, not because they don't know the human figure, but because that's all they know.
But no, keep on Loomis, all you need is more Loomis and you'll be Ruan Jia someday.
None of these "authorities" on what /ic/ "should be reading" have any work to show. Take it from me, underwater-gate-guardian-wip-guy
But you're objectively wrong
Kim draws using perspective heavily, read any interview of his, watch any demo. He thinks using boxes in correct perspective. Combined with the fact he draws constantly from life (like I said) is what makes his work.
Keep being narrow minded though, im sure if you religiously study every tendon in the body you'll become a master figure drawing, like every doctor in the world
childish and you can't read. amazing
good luck with your education
He's kind of beginner core, and only teaching you about figure drawings, nothing wrong with that of course, but I only want more advanced teaching material.
Not surprising the more advanced books are barely mentioned on /ic/.
That's why he's good, he gives artists a jump-start to understanding what they're drawing and to make sketching easier.
No one on /ic/ mentions them because one can simple go into an Artbook thread and download a book and do advance steps from there.
The first one is organized and depicts the subject clearly without cluttering it with emotion or style, the second one has those things. They are different drawings.
Personally I prefer Loomis because I'm an edge whore.
It's mostly just drawings though. With very little explanations so that shouldn't be a problem.
Here's a high quality picture to show you what I mean.
Good for composition and learning to draw
Good for construction and simplifying forms. If you can't read his drawings, get better eyes.
Good for anatomy and thats it.
Decent for gesture, recognizing the 3 main forms and their relationships. Anatomy construction a bit pf perspective. Good for head drawing.
Good for drawing ayy lmaos and JoJos
It's not about one being the best. It's about reading everything and coming up with your conclusions.
Bridgman isn't great for construction. Loomis and Vilppu emphasize those things a great deal more than he does.
Hampton is among the best when it comes to learning anatomy (he has the benefit of color printing on his side which literally no other aforementioned author has), but his heads are hella weak, son.
Loomis by far has the best, and most varied, face and head drawings out of all of the aforementioned authors by a large margin, and that's not even just counting his silly Blooks. Loomis goes into esoteric stuff like composition, line etc. that none of those other authors do as well. His only real stand out flaw is that he doesn't really teach the physical "act" of drawing in the way that the first chapter of Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, Keys to Drawing or Peter Han's youtube videos do.
Hogarth is underrated in my opinion too