How well do you think the Frank Reilly method works for learning

>>2865171
Try it out and see for yourself. Personally I found using it helped me a fair bit, though I have since stopped using it. Most people actually use a combination of methods/their own method. So try out Reilly, Loomis, Hampton, Hogarth, Kevin Chen, Bridgman, Asaro, Vilppu etc and see what works for you, taking bits and pieces of each. This way you will have an approach and understanding that is more well rounded and personal to you, and it reduces the likelihood of approaching it in a single formulaic manner.

>>2865171
It helped me out a lot. Probably more than Loomis.
But a friend who's way better than I at faces says to be cautious when using Reilly, and that it's best applied when drawing from a photo and not when constructing a face from imagination.

>>2865171
How can I study his method ? Is there some books or videos he made ?

>>2865173
>it reduces the likelihood of approaching it in a single formulaic manner
Is that a bad thing?

File: Capture3.png (167KB, 370x776px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 370x776px

I like it for figure drawing, it's like a combination of gesture/construction

>>2866074
What book is that

>>2866037
Ditto, you can spot someone who overtly uses loomis or reilly in their life and imagination drawings

It's best to use the reilly rhythms in observation of a form irl.
The reilly method is sort of a training to be able to see rhythms everywhere
no matter what subject, figure, landscape etc.

>>2866064
Yes, I think any formulaic approach is dangerous. It leads to stagnation and the same result each time, regardless of how suitable it is as a solution for the problem at hand.

File: Capture4.png (523KB, 620x805px) Image search: [Google]

523KB, 620x805px

>>2866383