Which Bridgeman's is best Bridgeman's? I got inspired

Meant to also post the vid, which is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7bYjWw3W8Y

File: meme-man.jpg (172KB, 1500x579px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1500x579px

>Bridgman

>>2724587
where's the art from the middle from?

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-25 at 23.10.05.png (187KB, 259x331px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 259x331px

kek. Well they have the wht I got on the cover these days. I guess from the memery Constructive Anatomy is the way to go. Is pic related any good?

Actually while googling: "try to avoid Bridgman's Complete Guide to Drawing from Life. this was put together by an editor with little pieces of all his books so its not as clear as useing his original books."

Read more: http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php/223261-Best-George-Bridgman-Book?s=fae561bfec486cf4d5c44390b4c8cf58#ixzz4O8bJ9NLT

OP start with head+hands and constructive anatomy. Also pick up the human machine

>>2724592
Its good in that it has lots of illustrations, but there's no cohesion.

>>2724587
>thinking the center pic is more skilled than A.B.
>not being able to parse bridgman's god-tier linework
NGMI

His illustrations are specifically for instruction and include extra info about form. He achieves more in one line than your center pic does even with tone.

>>2724587
What a stupid infographic. Bridgman is useful BECAUSE he simplifies things so well. Highly rendered drawings are nice to look at but won't teach you much.

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-25 at 23.29.09.png (167KB, 428x700px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 428x700px

Anyone tried drawing the whole book? I just did page one. Sort of looks like Trump dancing...

>>2724612
I drew the whole book in a day. Took 16 hours

>>2724605
He doesn't simplify things well.

>>2724587

so wait
hold on
let me get this straight
you're telling me
hold up
you're telling me you get lots of illustrations of construction from simple shapes rather than detailed renders in a book called "constructive anatomy"?

Really makes you think...

>>2724612
I've drawn Constructive Anatomy and Human Machine each through entirely at least once, and if you add up random studies from it it probably works out to around twice per book.

>>2724614

Go to bed Frazetta.

>>2724585
Holy shit these faggots sound like people who have been talking too long.

>>2724614
Amazing! Results?

>>2724617

Speak for yourself. The way he simplified feet was what really made it click for me. I like his approach a lot.

>>2724614
Wasn't that some challenge someone set up? Dave rapoza? Or am I thinking of something else.

>>2724625
Oh, Frank Frazetta, fuck my ass

>>2724625
Dave copied the book out I think like 13 times? He was told as a kid that it takes 13 times of doing something to become learned, so would redraw the same diagram over and over until it was burned into his memory.

>>2724622
kek. Yup pretension is turned up to Hippie-Max. I found the opening rant a bit inspiring though. Also Mann is allowed to have a big ego, he's pretty good.

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-25 at 23.45.05.png (238KB, 699x471px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 699x471px

>>2724628
dat ass

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-25 at 23.46.05.png (294KB, 328x487px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 328x487px

He was good at drawing swords too.

>>2724632
hhnnggg

File: 1452445825309.jpg (773KB, 1275x1950px) Image search: [Google]

773KB, 1275x1950px

>>2724625
Yeah I set it up, here's the image. I think only me and one other anon actually went all the way through though, and I don't remember if they actually posted their results or not-it's been a while (9 months and 15 days, apparently)

File: wew.jpg (148KB, 1400x2000px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1400x2000px

>>2724648

>>2724648

Alright. Fuck it. I ain't got nothing to lose.

File: image.jpg (174KB, 1207x1600px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1207x1600px

>>2724648
Dude, that is fucking cool. I might try this. So what was the result? Can you draw sweet ass nubiles riding giant lizards at will now?

>>2724584
Holy shit. Can't you fuckers stick to one thread? Damn

File: whytho.jpg (25KB, 323x454px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 323x454px

>>2724614
Why the fuck would you draw the book? Why don't you apply what is said in the book to references or something?

File: anatomy lol.jpg (202KB, 573x844px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 573x844px

>bridgeman
Aw man, that brings back memories.

That book isn't bad, but the edgy fine arts stylization always annoyed me in the looser illustrations. Kinda struck me as an artistic choice that one might wish to do after studying more 'precise' anatomical illustrations, rather than learning anatomy as illustrated.

>>2724648
This sounds counter-productive as fuck, 2bh.

I understand if you do it as a test of whether you internalized the shit in the book after already copying it once or twice, but for actual studying, it's just dumb.

>>2724680
>Why the fuck would you draw the book?
That's what "studying a book" means, nigga.

You can't apply knowledge before acquiring it.

>>2724678
Apologies. Didn't make the other thread & only saw it later. This one seems to have gone a different direction anyhoo

>>2724681
>edgy fine arts stylization
You are stupid

File: uh.jpg (68KB, 663x748px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 663x748px

>>2724677
>So what was the result?

I'm not unhappy I'd done it, the pace was exhilarating and I do feel like I got a little out of it, but if you asked me what that is I don't think I could tell you conclusively.

>Can you draw sweet ass nubiles riding giant lizards at will now?

I wish it were that simple my man, but drawing through a book in a day can't make up for all those years I'd done nothing-and those days and weeks I continue to do nothing. I've only drawn for a few years and only intermittently, so I've still got a long way to go.

>>2724648
Well it'll get you good at drawing, but it won't get you good at composition, painting, rendering, value comps, gesture, literally anything else that makes an illustration

File: Untitled-1.jpg (49KB, 709x584px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 709x584px

>>2724808
Sorry I used a pretty conspicuous reference for that goofy sketch. Here are some from imagination. I'm still having a lot of trouble with dynamic poses.

>>2724648
>>2724649
Absolute Fucking Madman.

File: fug.jpg (23KB, 489x696px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 489x696px

>>2724815
You're right it won't, however no individual exercise or challenge no matter how daunting it appears will get one good at any of those individual things, it's cumulative. Unless drawing is super intuitive for you-and even if it is-mileage is king.

Keep in mind working pros draw 8 hours a day minimum as part of their job, so we amateurs will have to work very hard to meet or exceed the level of even the most mediocre among them.

It's dance or die, fambinos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB50v6joJCE

>>2724808
>I wish it were that simple my man, but drawing through a book in a day can't make up for all those years I'd done nothing-and those days and weeks I continue to do nothing. I've only drawn for a few years and only intermittently, so I've still got a long way to go.
You're not Drawing Every Day these days?

File: Untitled-1.png (112KB, 709x584px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 709x584px

>>2724856
Formally no, I forgot my password to LAS within 3 weeks lmoa. I can't remember what my username was either anymore, come to think of it.

Nonetheless I do draw pretty much every day, but more often than not it's a few flippant figures like this which take just a minute or two each and then I get distracted by something. I shudder to think about how much gains I've sacrificed shitposting alone. Don't follow my bad example, boys.

>>2724648
Another anon who did this reporting in.

The must useful thing I got out of it was simplifying form & rhythm -- just because you don't have time to get bogged down in minor details (around 10mins a page). If anyone here can relate to that then I'd recommend it.

It was also good for whole-arm practice. Draw for 15 hours straight with just your wrist and you'll know about it.

>>2724648
If I do this every day for a month will I git gud at drawing figures?

>>2724917
No. A month isn't enough to get good at figure drawing no matter how many hours you practice. Plus it would be a pretty dumb way of doing things.

>>2724922
fug.
>Plus it would be a pretty dumb way of doing things.
then what do I do for optimal gains?

>>2724924
Don't rush through each section. Try to absorb the lessons in them, maybe this involves reading the passages with it several times, copying each image a few times, redrawing it from memory and correcting, trying to draw it from other angles, looking at photos and master paintings of the same area and studying them and comparing them to the breakdowns Bridgman does etc.

The point is neither to just do a huge volume as a sprint, nor is it to do a "grind". You want to learn, so this probably means going at a sustained deliberate pace over a long period of time and with intention while learning, trying things, experimenting and aiming for a complete understanding that goes beyond the superficial.

You also want to study an actual scientific book like Peck to learn the real forms and compare them to the stylized forms from Bridgman. It's a good idea to explore other artists as well, maybe Vilppu, Hampton, Vanderpoel, Kevin Chen, Bammes, maybe even Hogarth.

All the while you probably want to be doing life drawing on a regular basis too.

Drawing is a skill that takes years to master so you shouldn't look for shortcuts or quick fixes that will just harm you later down the road.

File: Untitled-4.jpg (32KB, 714x474px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 714x474px

>>2724917
While I think drawing it in one day was a fun one-off experiment, I definitely wouldn't recommend doing it every day for fug's sake. It'd be almost impossible, even if you had almost no obligations whatsoever. Besides, while there is nothing particularly wrong with the book, it is rapidly approaching its 100th birthday and there are so many contemporary instructors that teach similar concepts that are worth exploring as well, including Loomis who was a student of Bridgman, or Michael Hampton who has the modern luxury of color printing to clearly delineate one anatomical element from another.

We're lucky enough to have inherited a large variety of material by very skilled men, no need to get too invested in one or the other just because some beard guy named Jeremy Mann-talented though he is-happened to name drop him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohw1dkJYNMY

>>2724873
I did some digging, your username was Feeltheposebruh if https://56.media.tumblr.com/d0bbb29b92a50f14d9446434365ade6d/tumblr_o15507w5891v274qho1_1280.jpg was yours.

>>2725649
-you can probably get Lava to reset your password if you set a recovery email (or you could just make a new account, it's trivially easy t b h).

File: bridgman.jpg (179KB, 996x1000px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 996x1000px

>>2724648
lmao I'm 3 pages in and my fingers are already cramping

I could be hopped up on cocaine and still not make it to a decent milestone in 16 hours

brb killing myself

>>2724591
Those are Erik Gists copies of Bridgman drawings.

>>2725934
Do it with a pencil and paper ya dingus. Doing all that on a tablet puts way more strain on your hand and wrist.

>>2725937
>Do it with a pencil and paper ya dingus
holy shit that never even occurred to me

you have the wisdom of a falcon, anon

>>2724648
I dont understand. Just mindlesly copy? With no thought put into? Why this is gonna work?

File: torsos.png (40KB, 564x292px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 564x292px

we should do this with hampton's book
altho drawing the whole thing in a day is pretty absurd

>>2726550

IMO it might be a fun challenge and it wouldn't hurt to do it but I think you'd learn more doing a full day of life quick life drawings. When studying the work's of other artists, and perhaps particulary anatomy, I think it's better to slow it down a notch and get really analytical about every line you're drawing.

>>2724587
>expecting rendering in a construction book

File: cabfcsfva.png (2MB, 1200x1697px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x1697px

>>2726550
>Why is this gonna work?
uh it's not

I did this today just to see how far I could get

>>2726649
anon this is great
did you at least improve at hands?

>>2726658
it improved my understanding of bones in the hand or just a feel for them I would say

>>2726550

It'd probably build a bit of muscle memory and intuition on how Bridgman handles forms, and if you're doing it quick it'd be not unlike gesture drawing (in the 'don't overthink it just draw' sense). Its net worth as a drawing exercise probably isn't remarkably valuable though.

>>2726550

I'm pretty sure he did it all in a single day because he was borrowing the book and wanted to make a copy for further study

I've drawn nearly everything from constructive anatomy over the course of like, 6 months. That's a better speed to just take things easy and really digest each image.

It's good to just play around with your practice too, trying new things, keeping it fresh, pushing yourself. It's very easy to find that you wasted a month of drawing practice just doing things that were too close to your comfort zone.

>>2725649
>>2725650
Ah you're right; maybe I'll think about coming back. It did keep me motivated-but when I dropped out there was a pretty disproportionate withdrawal, too.

>>2726550
>mindlesly copy

There is no such thing as completely mindless drawing, though there are degrees of mindfulness that are totally dependent on the individual. While drawing these plates I was thinking of proportions, spacial relationships, forms and even anatomy same as if I were drawing it in a more subdued manner. Though in not reading the book itself I wasn't treated to the specific names of the anatomical landmarks I was recording, nonetheless I was observing them and I do believe each drawing to have been a small incremental step towards internalizing everything, things like "that" (that being anything, like the sartorious muscle, the sternomastoid or some-such) goes "there" and looks like "that".

>Why this is gonna work?

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'work' and what you would you expect such an exercise to do.

After performing an single rendering study is the artist imparted with the abilities of Repin in that subject? After drawing an individual figure is the artist able to summon a convincing figure drawing in any position from any angle from his imagination like Vilppu?

Drawing through a book in a day might seem daunting or impressive on the outset, but when you look at it holistically all you're doing is cramming three or four days of drawing into one. There are only a few drawings of each of the variety of subjects within the book itself so there's no way you could attain mastery from them alone. However I also don't think doing it in a day implies that you're completely oblivious either-very few of the pages in the book 'should' take more than 10 minutes to draw even under other circumstances. The drawings are gestural, abbreviated things that serve as more of a suggestion of something than a completed whole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Tu5tLE4flc

>>2724707
+1

File: 102.jpg (70KB, 414x558px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 414x558px

I'm a concept artist and I'll put in my 2 cents.

If you cannot visually conceptualize like Bridgeman, Burne-Hogarth, or Loomis, there is a high likelihood you cannot draw very well.

There is a reason places like Pixar, Savannah CAD, and CIA draw so heavily from the above three. They focus on spatial fundamentals, drawing through the form, the interplay between weighted forms, and mark hierarchy.

They focus on the visual equivalents of "subject-verb" agreement and present them as simplified abstractions (which is what drawing is, mostly.)

>>2726931
>I'm a concept artist!
>posts figure work from a famous fine artist
I do agree with what you wrote though

>>2726931
>If you cannot visually conceptualize like Bridgeman, Burne-Hogarth, or Loomis, there is a high likelihood you cannot draw very well.
>if you can't loomis, you probably can't draw
>but you also maybe can
>this is quality information and probably news to people on /ic/
>did I mention I am a concept artist?

File: IMG_2468.jpg (90KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 640x1136px

Using his book right now

>>2726953
Good job kiddo. *Pats the kid on the head. You're getting it.

>>2726954
Draw a line from the sternal notch to the weighted inner malleolus. For most poses they'll line up.

>>2726944
>>posts figure work from a famous fine artist

Oh yeah man, you gotta stay with the fine arts, too. There is a definite relationship.

>>2726955
*teleports behind you*
nothing personnel kid

File: 10868164_811732548889884_7577723872122843701_n.jpg (37KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x500px

>>2726958

Why not just say 'sternum to ankle'?

>>2726967
There's a relationship, but they're not linked entirely. Fine arts has different goals and has a model usually, so their methods can be quite different (sight size being a good example).

I was more pointing out how you were bragging of your position and it was structured as if that was your drawing, but I recognized it right away.

>>2726969
I heard my professor say those two exact phrases literally hundreds of times. It stuck.

>>2726970
All of the concept art/SCAD/Pixar aspiring kids in my classes had the same Fine Arts foundations. My professor was from NYU and he said the best foundations were in Fine Arts, and I agree (so does Pixar/et cetera).

I didn't mind your bragging either, you'll get there! I see your drawings getting better.

http://derekhess.com
A guy from my same lineage. Linked a little to concept art, with a fine arts background. One of the bigger names in contemporary art.

>>2726982
>All of the concept art/SCAD/Pixar aspiring kids in my classes had the same Fine Arts foundations. My professor was from NYU and he said the best foundations were in Fine Arts, and I agree (so does Pixar/et cetera).
"Fine arts" is too broad a term to make that statement imo. It's better to say any method focusing on construction and form is ideal for a concept artist or illustrator, and any method focusing on 2d shapes is better suited to fine artists. Of course you want to employ both, but the 3d construction is of the most important because it underlies everything else.

>I didn't mind your bragging either, you'll get there! I see your drawings getting better.
What? I didn't brag or post my art here.

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-28 at 12.01.01 AM.png (54KB, 752x308px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 752x308px

>>2726968
I love this guy.

>>2726977
kek

File: memes (2).png (303KB, 763x425px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 763x425px

>>2726990

It's a meme as old as the sun, anonymous.

>>2726985
>http://derekhess.com
>One of the bigger names in contemporary art.
Are you joking? His work looks like garbage, and he's not even famous.

>>2726990
How new are you?

>>2726994
>>2726996
Isn't the meme "nothing personal" and that anon is pointing out that the other anon fucked up the meme by typing "personnel", a word with an entirely different meaning? Or is there something I too am missing?

Does anybody have links to either of these? I feel like beating my head against a book will work better than beating my head against a sketch pad.

>>2724587
pppfftthahahhaha

>>2726999
google, you samefagging faggot

>>2724614
That sounds incredibly stupid, and Frank Frazetta is a known liar that tried to emulate Michelangelo.

He supplemented everything he learned, but he wanted some shit to put his name on the map and bloat the power behind his own work.

>>2727000
https://mega.nz/#F!es1BSKQR!spODyd0iaQmMelGA2GscFw!qsFRkCRa

Under Books and Articles/Anatomy/People

>>2724648
>Frazetta did commercial work when he was 16!

I believe this is garbage. It even says on his Wikipedia page that he was doing the inking for penciled work that other artists layed out. That man blew his own image out of the water as part of advertising himself and his own work.

He's a good artist, but he worked very hard to get to the point he ended up at. I don't buy the smoke and mirrors for a single minute.

>>2727007
I never understood why Frazetta lied so much about stuff to try to hype himself up. His work is solid enough on it's own without needing to add in myths and legends to it or lying about the process.

Anyways, I recall reading that he really did copy out an entire anatomy book in one night. I don't remember if it was Bridgman or not though. It was when he was in his teens and first starting out, and it's a story that I think has been confirmed by the guy who lent it to him. That said, it didn't teach him all he knew about anatomy, it just improved it slightly the next day because he became aware of certain muscles and things. I never heard the theory set out by the other anon in this thread that it was a way to "photocopy" the book in a sense so that he could study it as his leisure later since he didn't own it, but that sounds pretty plausible actually.

>>2727015
>>2727017
Can't deny he's one hell of a marketer.

>>2727015
>It even says on his Wikipedia page that he was doing the inking for penciled work that other artists layed out
I would consider that commercial work. He was in a studio doing art and making a living. It's not as impressive as if he were doing it all himself, but it's still paid work.

Also I thought he did have a comic strip of his own around that age? It was a gag comic though so was pretty cartoony and silly and didn't demand high draftsmanship.

In that documentary on him they showed a painting that they claimed was done by him at age 8 before any formal training, and if it was actually done by him at that age then he would definitely have been a child prodigy.

>>2727015
>he was doing the inking for penciled work that other artists layed out
That is technically commercial work, though. Like, there are artists whose sole profession is inking other people's lay-ins.

I don't know how impressive it is to do it at 16, but still.

>>2726995
>http://derekhess.com
the fact that there's a documentary that supposedly won major awards is also scary

>>2726931
hwhat aboot glenn vilppu

>>2727013
Thank you so much. Really, everything in that archive is amazing.

What is so annoying with bridgman is the terrible print quality for everything except "Drawing from Life." Feels like some art teachers felt threatened and shit it up.

The more I buy art instruction books, the more I find I end up going with reprints from Dover. Since basically half a century most art instruction books should be burned with the people who wrote them, because all of them are amateur tier or just want you to waste money on overpriced art supplies.

>>2726556
lol isn't hampton's book like 200+ pages? maybe it'd work if the allotted time is extended

File: 1477214727789.jpg (17KB, 480x473px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x473px

>Read Bridgman
>Don't know what the hell he's talking about
>Waste an hour taking notes

Does anybody else do the same thing?

>>2728425
>The pyramidal mass of the first segment of the thumb

>Realize if I hadn't read Michael Hampton's book I wouldn't know what the hell he's talking about

>>2728425
There's a pretty high bar of assumed knowledge.

>>2728427
>>2728425
are u guys retarded?

>>2728451
This is true, but there's also a lot of useful information you can learn by reading and looking at your own body.

>>2728454
I'm not retarded. I've had my IQ tested by a psychiatrist, and I've clocked 131.

>>2728454
English isn't my first language and I feel like that makes it much harder.

File: Book.jpg (34KB, 514x225px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 514x225px

>>2728497
>Reading about the wrist
>Its width is twice its thickness

Don't even pretend that it's not hard to read this thing. I understood more by measuring my own wrist than reading that sentence.

>>2728506
>Its width is twice its thickness
To an English speaker that sentence makes perfect sense. Even if you are not an English speaker just look at your wrist and it's obvious what he's talking about.

>>2728520
I'm a native English speaker, and I've always heard people either say length or width. I've never seen or heard anyone use width and thickness in the same sentence.

It must be a geographical thing.

>>2728526
Well I think he doesn't say length because that implies the length of the entire forearm. He's only talking of two dimensions of the wrist out of three, so he uses width and then could use another word like height I suppose but it sounds weirder than just saying thickness. Maybe depth would work too, but sounds kind of odd.

It's been a while since I went through Bridgman's stuff, but I don't remember ever getting confused by him.

File: brigy.jpg (675KB, 1600x4000px) Image search: [Google]

675KB, 1600x4000px

lets see those bridemanz

>>2728951
h-hey some of those don't quite look like they're from bridgman...

>>2728975
wrong, these are all from bridgman

>>2728975
Looks fine to me

>>2724648
i don't like anything that makes me rush I'd do an hr or so max and then go draw from refs or imagination everyday till done.

>>2728425
>taking notes and not just drawing

>>2724648
Burning out, how to

File: getaload.jpg (43KB, 640x496px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 640x496px

>>2729043
>Just copying and not analyzing marks while taking notes

>>2728415
Bridgman's complete guide to drawing from life is over 340 pages

File: idk lol.gif (429KB, 206x196px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 206x196px

>>2729935
There's nothing to it but to do it. You have to plan ahead of time for scheduling purposes, though. I set a date several days ahead of making that image in which I had no other obligations. I did almost nothing that entire day but draw, eat, make some minimal contact with friends, and kept /ic/ posted every couple dozen pages. Anyone that can draw fairly quickly and accurately can do it, but if you still chicken scratch or have to spend a lot of time gauging spatial relationships and proportions etc. I wouldn't bother even trying yet. Consider just doing 10 pages or so and timing yourself, you should be able to tell if it's possible for you to make it by that point. Some pages will take much longer than others, but a small cluster of them like that should be fairly representative of the whole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tuu4VXNllV4