Hey fellow artists. Why is it that people here brlieve so deeply

>>2296694
because the latter is objectively worse and learning proper methods will achieve what the latter is trying to achieve in an exponentially shorter amount of time

>>2296718
I feel like like it takes the love out of art. Theres no need to rush the learning.

The entire purpose of writing down information is so that other people can read it.
The only reason we live in the world we do today with tvs and cars and lightbulbs is because people wrote down what they discovered so that other people can read it rather than spending all that time discovering the thing again.
You can't go around reinventing the wheel.
It would take you well over a lifetime to figure out the human anatomy, how perspective works, how to use colour, etc on your own.

>>2296720
Yes, there is.

Loomis only applies to illustrat shit, ic can't into fine art, painting or colour.

But most of ic just wants to doodle animu pr0n, so take that with it. Honestly? Like an artists work, dig into it.

I can into cubism because of based Gris. Abstract form because of Lewis, psychic shit because of Kadinsky, etc. There is no formula for getting gud, only progress. Choose your path.

>>2296774
One of the best posts I've ever read here, word.

>>2296694
Because Loomis is a part of their path to achieving their goals, and clicks with them? It seems most of /ic/ wants to draft and illustrate well, and Loomis and others are a very good way to achieve this.

>This whole thing of learning the art like a formula seems wrong. why not learn by just observing and drawing everyday and develop ur own vey unique style with your own very unique foundation?

Because this takes considerably longer and is usually flawed.
You don't need to study Loomis, but assuming you can find out on your own the collective knowledge of generations of artists - many of which were actively educated in art by other artists - is a little silly. Having a foundation in the cultivated knowledge of people who have been doing it for years and specifically wrote it down to impart their experience on others is obviously a giant advantage over trying to figure all those things out alone.
Learning from others is what makes human beings in general able to specialize. We don't just try and fucking figure everything out on our own, we look to people who have come before us and done it well.
There's an element of 'figuring it out' in that, where you adapt the methods of your superiors to suit your needs. You can read Loomis and not like his technique, and come up with a method that works better than you from there.

>>2296798
I like this great advice dude. Because of this im goin to do loomis now. How should i start?

>>2296736

A hundred times this.

OP is brainwashed by post modernistic relativist thinking that is a cancer in the western culture.

Learning techniques and methods does not limit you. Eventually you learn what works for you and stop using what doesn't.

>>2296821
Gr8 advice thanks im going to do loomis and if i hate it when im done i just wint use it. How should i start

>>2296720
Doing something in a shorter amount of time is a side factor of rushing though, they're not synonymous.

As others have mentioned, you make your own path by digging into your surroundings in life. If you've set a goal, these surroundings contribute to your goal.
It just so happens that as humans, time and resources spent achieving our goals is, you guessed it, finite.

If you love something, for whatever reason, and set a goal you wish to achieve in that area, you're going to run into finite time and resources.
Some people pick up on this fact before anything else, and avoid restraining their method of success to "I must only make my own observations, re-invent the wheel whenever possible, and only learn things in my surroundings at the lowest level possible".

An example of this is Bob Ross. He was passionate as fuck about painting right? Just out of no where, summoned the energy to express a huge love for it?
Where does he pull all that energy from, to express that love so deeply?
He was achieving his end goal. His end goal was, you guessed it, to paint something in a finite amount of time.
He wanted to finish his paintings in the short time slots he was designated for breaks in the military. He also wanted to sell them for money.
His love for art was driven by factoring in finite time and resources.
Who's techniques did he study, and how did he manage to apply those to such a finite amount of time as small as say 20 or 30 minutes?

People choose to learn from existing techniques that others have discovered and pursued, not because they don't love something and want to remove any trace of passion from doing it, but because they love it so much they want to see it succeed and become a reality.

So you speak of "taking the love out of art", as though having a love for something is only possible in one particular way.
In order for anyone to know what you mean by that sentence, you'd first need to define what your personal love for art actually IS.

>>2296843
Well ive pretty much have learned most stuff on my own but i love art because its purly coming from me and it flows very well bcus it was all built up by me. All my practice has been me working stuff out on my own and it may take hours but when i finally got it it was gr8. Pretty much my emotion really flows through wvery line for me and it feels amazing n i can go for hours everyday just drawing.

>>2296843
But i like ur point of view about the time thing

>>2296861
>>2296862
thanks
you should post some of your art senpai

>>2296811

Go to the books thread, download his books, read them, apply what he suggests in the books as you read it, even if it seems clear to you. Doing it will make sure it sticks.

Fun With A Pencil is the standard starting point but if you're intermediate try figure drawing for all it's worth.

>>2296874
Not him, but can one consider themselves intermediate or prepared for FDFAIW when they can manipulate primitives and construct reasonably well?

>>2296694
>Why is it that people here brlieve so deeply in studying loomis?

We don't. We recommend Loomis to noobies who lack any fundamentals because Loomis happens to be the artist who wrote the easiest to understand, yet still fairly competent books on those subjects.

Why the fuck do beginners always have to exaggerate this? Just because you suck at art and someone told you to read more Loomis doesn't mean that Loomis is our god and you are supposed to copy him and never develop your own style. It just means you can't draw a fucking head or figure in proper perspective and you need to learn how to do that before moving on to more advanced subjects.

>>2296883

Yeah that's the basic idea of progression here

Linear perspective form drawing -> constructive figure drawing

with a bracket around both pointing to life/ observational drawing

Loomis or the sticky are just a starting point or a reference point. Since everyone is different with different amounts of experience and talent we pretty much provide the most basic starting point. For the absolute majority of people it's simply impossible to learn without guidance in the beginning and for many it will be impossible troughout their whole journey. It's pretty much decided on how you handle being lost which is a feeling you will have as a beginner all the time and will follow you probably all the way to a certain degree. No one can help you with handling that feeling but if you manage to break trough it consistently you will develop finely for sure. Seeking more information is probably the most prominent way of running away from that feeling and is a sure way to stagnate eventually.

You will never find your optimal way in a guide or a book but after you get to know the subject at hand you can work freely on your optimal way trough innovation, knowing yourself, experimentation and other factors. You can definitely learn wrong, you can definitely break by blindly following even the best teachers.

Also Loomis is a household meme on /ic/.

>>2296781

Lurk moar.

Seriously, there are actually quite a lot of people around here who think like the anon you quoted.

"Everyone on /ic/ only recommends Loomis all the time" is really just a meme, people are a lot more diverse here and Loomis is definitely not agreed upon by everybody on this board.