Is Loomis the best books on drawing in general?

>>2740440
On drawing what? It teaches a specific method and lessons that were relevant to a 1950's illustrator. Much of that, but not all, is still relevant for modern illustrators, but that may not be what you want to learn.

Even if they are "the best" for what you want, they're not a complete education in themselves.

>>2740440
no

No, for me his books are a meme. There's good stuff like proportions and construction, but his teachings were took by countless people who nowadays tell the same in more straightforward and simply better way.

Not to mention that some stuff is just plain wrong, see - his ball under 1 pointed light source.

>>2740440
No, they're good, but not the best.

>what's better?
Read the sticky.

>>2740458
>his teachings were took by countless people who nowadays tell the same in more straightforward and simply better way.
Even old books taught similar concepts in a clearer manner. The Famous Artists Course is rock solid for illustration stuff, and Bridgman for everything relating to the figure.

>>2740465
>Checks sticky
>Loomis
Ok

>>2740475
You're reading the wrong sticky: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uwaXKU7ev6Tw_or__o8ARpUb6r2rCZYJGqwSFV9AD98/edit

His other books are a bit overrated but Fun with a Pencil is pretty good for a beginner.

>>2740477
im hearing alot of reffrences to stickies. where are all of these things exactly?

>>2740440
You'll probably find books you will enjoy more but I have yet to find a book that covers as much as loomis books.

>>2740526

/ic/ should have new sticky , but mods don't visit this place in fear of catching "never gonna make it" disease aka AIDS from d/ic/ks, so some faggot started an effort of making better sticky.

It's ok.

>>2740471
>The Famous Artists Course
where can I find it? The torrent on cgpeers is stuck and the only other one I can find deals with cartooning.

>>2740533
It's in the /loomis/ mega under course books and assignments I think

>>2740539
>forgot the link

awoo

https://mega.nz/#F!es1BSKQR!spODyd0iaQmMelGA2GscFw

>>2740533
I dunno, it comes and goes online it seems. I downloaded the whole thing a while back, possibly even from the art book thread on /ic/. Check the links in the OP of the current thread and maybe it is in one of the collections that has a ton of books.

>>2740539
>>2740541
wew it's over 300megs though-there's gotta be a better way

>>2740544
It's literally a series of like 25 separate booklets on different topics. So yes, it will be a large file.

>>2740541
sweet! Thank you anon.

Loomis is pretty good. How people like Scott Robertson get worshipped who can't even explain the simplest shit at all in a straightforward way, I don't know.

Loomis is a good foundation but specialists should be sought out for more detailed instruction.

Also, "Figure Drawing For All It's Worth" is really the only true classic of the Loomis books and it's not one for beginners. It's more like a focusing lens for an experienced yet inefficient artist, a large collection of extremely helpful tips.

>>2740862
>fun with a pencil
>not a true classic

>>2740863

Not really, no.

File: dfd642425e135094fa203976d7dbc92e.jpg (23KB, 382x500px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 382x500px

question: I haven't gotten started on Bridgman yet (have downloaded Constructive Anatomy and Complete Guide to Drawing from Life), but I've glimpsed through the pages, and his style is much messier than Loomis, and the descriptions sound much more technical. Pic related was supposedly from one of his students though. if you've studied his books, what is your opinion of him?

>>2740897

I've drawn through Constructive Anatomy a few times.

Generally speaking there are two sides to learning anatomy. There's the scientific side, which is the technical specifications of the human body, and there's the artistic side, which is how to translate that raw information into a drawing. Bridgman focuses on the latter and he does an excellent job of it..

>>2740458
> but his teachings were took by countless people who nowadays tell the same in more straightforward and simply better way

So fucking much this. His stuff is so much repetitive and dispersive. I found this problem even with other art books, I don't know why they are so unnecessary long

>>2740458
>people who nowadays tell the same in more straightforward and simply better way
Any examples of modern books better than loomis?

>>2743660

Unironically Proko does a pretty decent job at encapsulating a lot of Loomis' construction method, at least for heads. I think that pointing beginners to Proko would teach them most of the same skills in a format that most beginners find more agreeable, even if Loomis' stuff is a bit more comprehensive and certainly worth reading.

>>2740440
So long as you're not an idiot.

It never fails. Someone's stupid enough to think that his instruction means copying his style 1:1 instead of actually reading the basic instructions. If you have the capacity to apply basic critical thinking, the books are fine start.

>>2743715
this, loomis' "fun with a pencil" is great for beginners if you can explain them how to learn from it, it's a guide not a rule book. i was going to buy a fisical copy for my niece, she's 13 and really want's to draw but she sucks ass, i think it will help her to start grasping the concept of actually picking the pencil and construct the drawing so she can learn foundations later

No imho

Loomis's Eye Of The Painter one of my favorite art book that for sure.

>>2743687
Proko mentions he's teaching Loomis' method

>>2740862
i also get this impression on myself. he is like someone who knows but he is a bad teacher