This book a shit

It's hard to apply. And bridgeman really doesn't explain the medical terms he uses either.

its strength really lies in the expressive linework, but yeah it's complete shit for weeaboos like you.

>>2943918
Somebody doesnt know how to analyze drawings

>>2943918
Obvious bait

>>2944038
>It's hard to apply
It's really not

>bridgeman really doesn't explain the medical terms he uses either.
He's best when used in conjunction with a more scientific book. Also be sure to read his actual books like Constructive Anatomy and Human Machine and not that complete pile of trash that is the "complete" guide.

>its strength really lies in the expressive linework
The linework isn't anything special. I'd say the strength lies in his approach to forms and how different forms interact with other ones. He's very planar and solid and knows when and how to simplify or group things.

>>2944043
I guess I don't , thats not in the sticky my fampai.

>>2944046
>my opinion must be different and invalidate everyone else's!

>>2944117
>not being a dick sucking contrarian faggot
Lmao

>>2944046
whoa, does the complete one not have everything his other stuff has? i thought it just combined all trhose books drawings and words into 1

>>2943918
WTF I hate this book now!

>>2944146
Its poorly organized because the book was done after his death , and whoever put it together had no idea, if you compare his actual books vs the complete guide the books are organized in a consistent matter.

As far as I'm concerned 90% of artbooks recommend are trash, including 'classics' like Loomis and Bridgman.

>>2944236
What are the 10%?

>>2943918
wrong. of all the memes bridgman is worth studying.

File: wrong.gif (1MB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x287px

>>2943918
Wrong. Very very wrong OP. Bridgman is the fucking grandmaster taught both Loomis and Hogarth. and he bases all of his forms on boxes which is much easier and consistent that round forms imo. With spheres and curves it's sometimes hard to tell when you've done something sloppy but with a box, it's very easy to see if it's in the correct perspective. Just copying his drawings once or twice taught me infinitely more than studying Loomis for a week. Loomis is good to teach beginners proportions, but for anatomy, you can't go wrong with Bridgman.

>Not speaking Bridgman's language and saying he uses gibberish instead of learning the language yourself

pls watch
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpnP28b3riY

OP this thread is more suited to you

>>>2937718