What books would you recommend for classic academic approach

Loomis

None, because it is trash. Find me a contemporary painter who makes art as well as 19th century painters of whom they claim to base their training of "classic academic approach."

>>2895890
>classic academic approach to drawing
Tell us what you think this means, then maybe we can recommend something to fit.

In the interim, have fun with
>https://mega.nz/#!Q8owyCbC!wyRA9e-txOCrNd25ANfbBr9P0dzqduBOq6b1eo1C4X8

>>2896513
I agree that "classical academic" artists of today pale in comparison to the past, but there are some decent ones. For drawing I think Nicolai Blokhin is on par with some 19thC artists, and for history paintings I would place Mian Situ up there too with the 19thC guys.

>>2896513
>>2896533
"classical academic approach" implies a working method, not quality.

Most concept artists use a variation of the academic approach, by compositing a picture from lots of reference.

>>2896569
>"classical academic approach" implies a working method, not quality.
True, but the people today who claim to be using the same methods really are using a bastardization of them. Things like Bargue plates are copied in ways they weren't designed or originally studied in, long poses at ateliers are longer than ever before etc.

>Most concept artists use a variation of the academic approach, by compositing a picture from lots of reference.
Actually I think the methods of concept artists are so far removed from a classical approach they cannot be called the same thing at all.

>>2896569
It implies that as well as method of teaching, and it has produced very few painters of quality. The teachings of 19th century academies were much wider in what they encompassed, compared to the versions taught today.
>>2896533
Blokhin isn't that great. Mian Situ is much better though, even if his works aren't my thing. He also came from a highly exclusive art school in China.