I'm doing loomis, but wont all these balls and sticks reinforce

>>2810305
are these exercises from the gesture book?

>>2810307

Its from "fun with a pencil". I think it is how to draw a body.

>>2810305
>but wont all these balls and sticks reinforce symbol drawing?

I would suggest that you pretend the sticks are cylinders, balls as spheres, and squares as cubes; this will help you see form. Loomis is a little advanced.

You never really totally abandon symbol drawing, you level up to use 3d forms like cubes/cylinders/spheres/etc as your symbols instead of primitive alphabet-tier symbols.

>>2810319
why are you asking so early on? this is like his most basic book and these are the most basic exercises I'm sure.

>>2810350

Because when ever you are being taught something you should understand why and what you are meant to get out of it.

I have every intention of continuing but it is interesting to discuss my learning experience.

I found >>2810322 to be a very interesting response.

>>2810305
What every classic cartoonist never tells you that is essentially the secret to classic cartooning is that the base shapes are just tools, you use them as a guide to SCULPT interesting organic forms that can't be named.

>you will never be so low level again that you think loomis is symbol drawing

whew

>>2810305

I like your midgets.

>>2810305

Loomis was taught by Bridgman, so he had form (3D shapes) in mind when drawing those shapes. Do prisms, cylinders, and spheres OP.

>>2810382

Thanks but that is loomis' work :-p

>>2810385

So one day when I am good, say i am copying a photo of a bird, will i start off by drawing the shapes I see to give it form instead of sketching the outline and then shading like i do now?

File: Blook Butt.jpg (229KB, 1451x571px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1451x571px

That's not symbol drawing you dingus. Symbol drawing is when a non-artist is told to draw an "eye" and they draw a utilitarian representation of it (like the classic almond shape with a circle in it) because they don't understand what an eye actually looks like. Loomis is teaching you to draw form, which is primitive 3D shapes in arranged in a certain manner to resemble a figure or an eye or anything you can imagine. Did you remember to actually read the book by any chance?

>>2810305
The whole point in drawing the blooks is to push your brain into drawing 3d keep going it took me 6 months

>>2810305
you aren't supposed to draw flat symbols but volumes.

>>2810355

In "Fun With A Pencil", Loomis' aim is to reach people who have not and do not draw. They don't know anything.

So he says, "Hey, consider these simple shapes. Try drawing these simple shapes. Cool. Okay, now we're going to create figures and life just out of those shapes."

That's the book. It's an introductory to art that explains that art isn't draw from beginning to finished product. It's constructed like everything else. Relying on skeletal structure to hold up and mold the form to hang the refinements off of.

It isn't a difficult concept. Maybe it's just too simple.

They aren't "symbols". If you can't tell the difference between the two concepts then you are not paying attention.

Or are just making an empty thread to have people argue in. I can't tell with this board sometimes.

File: draw an owl.webm (648KB, 408x578px) Image search: [Google]

648KB, 408x578px

>>2810387
You don't have to wait until you're good.

>>2811046

>Every drawing book ever

>>2810387

That copying method (sight-sizing) is useful to check for errors and to construct in form properly.

>>2810305

>reinforce symbol drawing
it will initially, but you can curb the habit if you've studied and practiced any of the "draw what you see" books like Keys to Drawing etc

>>2810390

Yes and when that said unexperienced 'non-artist' starts applying Loomis' study, every single head they drew from then onwards will look exactly the same.

So they've graduated from drawing a typical classic 'symbolic' almosd shape eye, to a typical 'Loomis' 3/4 head

>>2810305
You are either too young or stupid to understand what you are doing. I hope it's the first one.

File: Untitled-2.jpg (113KB, 597x792px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 597x792px

>>2811930
Wrong. Look at what OP is drawing: various maquettes with different proportions that have no equivalent in reality, all from observation (i.e. not symbol drawing). He's already accomplished what copying Picasso's retard-drawing upside down is supposed to teach while also learning something new in the form of simplified construction and proportion.

You can't conflate this with "symbol drawing" in any way. By the time Loomis stops holding the reader's hand later in the book they're able to draw things that would have never been possible for them to draw before, even if they look cheesy by our modern standards. The book is highly underrated in all honesty.

bump for more anon shaming

>>2811046

So construction is only useful if I want to draw from imagination?

If I am working from a reference it has no use?

>>2812936
It's good for doing studies preferably from life since it's easier to see the object in perspective.