Bridgman vs Loomis vs Hoghart vs Vilppu vs Bammes

>>2730747
No single teacher can cover everything perfectly, so it's best to combine several. Which ones you combine is a bit of personal preference and will depend upon what you wish to learn.

>>2730747

..and if one should study after more teachers, should he study them at the same time or firstly finish studies of one teacher and then move on other teacher?

What are those unwriten "rules of proper approaching to art fundamental materials"?

Bebause i, like a lot of you have 30+ books on anatomy, perspective, composition from more than 10 different teachers (most popular Bammes, Hoghart, Vilppu, Bridgman,..)

>>2730749

Well its not that much in what i wish to learn than what we have to learn (all anatomy, perspective, forms, light and color, composition, storytelling..) in order to have proper skill set to apply it to our work.

I for example preffer Bridgman over Loomis but i assume i should study Loomis too?

>>2730747 >>2730750
>Hoghart
>Hoghart
Off topic, but this is a hilarious typo, and the fact you made it twice is making me laugh. Personally I think you can skip Hogarth.

>>2730751
I would suggest pairing a "scientific" book like Peck or Goldfinger with a more artistic and structural book like Bridgman or maybe Hampton to start. Study both at the same time and see how each of them handle different bones and muscles. Maybe Study Bammes afterwards, he is very thorough and will fill in any gaps left from the previous books. After you can move to Vilppu to get more gesture in your work.

I think you can skip Loomis. You either like him or you don't, and if you don't like him then don't force it. I personally improved a lot when I quit Loomis and used Bridgman instead.

>>2730754
not OP but wouldn't it make more sense to go for figure drawing books first since it's more simple/they tend to encompass simple muscle groups and important bones anyways?

>>2730799
I don't think it matters a whole lot really since there are different theories and opinions on how to learn, and it varies from individual to individual what works best.

In my opinion though it is best to learn the muscles and bones first in an accurate way. You may not be able to draw the figure well at that point, but you have accurate knowledge in your head that is useful once you start going to more figure drawing books that simplify things. and you will have a deeper understanding of those simplifications and how they relate to the actual anatomy.

If you just study simplifications at the start you may build in bad habits or a misunderstanding of the genuine nature of the forms. I'm sure you've seen artists that draw like they are doing diagrams from a figure drawing book, and their figures don't look natural or real at all.

I guess do what you want though. So long as you are open minded and continue to explore the figure and different approaches over a lifetime you will improve.

>>2730747

If want to learn figure drawing Drop Loomis, Bridgman and Hogarth. Books are useless.

Use video courses from Vilppu/Proko/Hampton, they all teach the same method that's based on loomis/bridgman. Choose whichever you like most, it doesn't matter.

>>2730747
>>2730750
>Hoghart
kek

>>2731510
>Vilppu/Proko/Hampton, they all teach the same method that's based on loomis/bridgman

to correct that statenment vilppu in a NMA video about drawing head said he didn't approve of the loomis method, he said "go for the real thing."

>>2730747
Loomis really isn't much of a teacher, his meme status is that his books are free and it's preferable to shunt potential students over to him instead of How to Draw Manga Books.

Bridgman is good at what he does but it's a pretty specific aspect.

Vilppu is plain good, no reason to drop him.

Idk about the other two, haven't seen enough of them to judge.

Any thought son Riven Phoenix?

http://www.alienthink.com/

>>2730747
>no hampton

>>2731687
A God.

Anyone know of an artistic anatomy book that explains things better than Constructive Anatomy?

Reminder that Loomis refers students to Bridgman for more thorough study of anatomy. He also refers students to Ernest Norling for more thorough study of perspective. Loomis is a general reference, and his teachings should be augmented by study from specialists in sub-disciplines.

Also, I think everyone who says "Loomis is a meme" just isn't at a level where they can digest him. Loomis is for intermediate artists, and to an intermediate artist his books are packed with helpful information. If you're a total noob he's not going to help you.

>>2731732
Anatomy for the sculptor

>>2730747

Vilppu > Bridgman > Hoghart > Bammes > Loomis

in that order but you really should look at all and find which one suits you the most

>>2730747

You should take from different teachers, for example

>Loomis

that is praised here actually can't into basic "sphere with one pointed lightsource" exercises and thinks highlight is where center of light is which is just fucking wrong.

For this you go

http://www.huevaluechroma.com/021.php

or Scott Robertson "How to Render". Actually this book and his "How to Draw" are very solid, Feng was a student of Robertson and now he teaches a lot from his first book in his school that is apparently highly-praised here.

>>2730749
Enjoy being a mannerist trash.

>>2731687
is this the guy who does artistic anatomy videos with tiny and out of focus doodles?

>>2731510
>>2731515

Perhaps I'm just dumb, but I just cannot understand Hampton. He gives you some tools, a few examples you can copy to try to grasp what he's talking about, but ultimately it's confusing because he decides to throw on a few techniques he discusses in later chapters and leave you wondering what exactly is going on.

I understand that drawing is a holistic process, but when he says stuff like "These drawings represent where you should be before moving on to the development of landmark bones and perspective" (p28 edition printed in 2013) and then proceeds to use landmark bones like the scapula and the ASIS points on the hips on the very page it's just plain confusing.

Hampton's explanations are pretty good (when he does give them) but the examples he presents have those ideas are buried so deep it takes quite a bit of effort just to figure out where they are makes working through the book a bit frustrating.

>>2736226
Forgot to mention that I have just *started* to study the human figure, so perhaps I lack some sort of requisite knowledge

none

>>2730747
You should study them all.
Don't be a "purist" and deny yourself knowledge.

>>2731687
He's good. Up there with Hoghart but not quite.

>>2736226
Yeah, Hampton is a bit of bitch in that sense. I'd suggest you run through his book anyway. It'll give you an ok starting ground.

>>2736226

Do what you can with what he says and just move through the book. There are good things in it about the basic construction.

Take his head construction section though. It's very bare and he seems to pull from Loomis but without prior knowledge he just kind of leaves you in the woods with vague directions.