Glenn Vilppu Academy

it would be really cool
Anyone have those video replay of him drawing ? https://youtu.be/Ij_-HStl04o?t=30s

>>2949371
>Why a share thread doesn't exist ?
once people hear his old fragile voice they feel too sorry for him to want to distribute his videos for free

>>2950238
?

But will it teach me 2 draw animes

>>2950345
don't talk to me

>>2949371
Villipu is fucking trash, not technically but aesthetically. I never seen advanced level artists draw figures as grotesque as this old fuck does. Almost as grotesque looking as his face. Yuck

>>2950366
best way to learn figure drawing for u ?

>>2950366
Rude commen about his face but I agree. Obviously has serious skill, but 0 aesthetic sense. Why does he make figures so goopy? Looks unnatural and nasty

>>2950345
?

>>2949371
lol /ic/ hates vilppu now?

>>2950366
he's an old man. It's forgivable. At least he's not fat.

>>2950908
vilppu is a meme

ruan jia is way better

>>2950908
He's memetrash like Watts

>>2951006

This. The only thing of note he ever did was being an art director of "Jem!" aka "This awful gay cartoon stuff for elderly bugchasers" and some shit for 80s "My Little Pony" which fucking sucked hard.

Really, of all /ic/ gods probably only Steve Huston has some work worth of note. Even old shitheads like Bridgman or Loomis are mainly known for being teachers and not some artists with their own body of work that amazed people.

>>2951088
>Really, of all /ic/ gods probably only Steve Huston has some work worth of note. Even old shitheads like Bridgman or Loomis are mainly known for being teachers and not some artists with their own body of work that amazed people.
Who cares though? These guys dedicated their lives to teaching instead of building their own body of work. so they are good teachers. Especially for something like anatomy that's probably desirable most of the time over someone who focuses on lots of other stuff then teaches some anatomy on the side. It's good to have specialists who are focused only on a sliver of art and on teaching that sliver the best they can.

>>2950908
Brace yourself, summer is coming.

>>2949371
vilppu is gay lol

am I cool now? :P

please gibe (you)s kthx

Why do you guys ruin your own board with shit posting instead of contributing?

>>2950366
I-I actually really like how it looks...

>>2950366
>I never seen

Learn to words you fucking ape.

>>2951377
Listen - there has been a misunderstanding.

Vilppu's methods are atrocious. When he tries to demonstrate his methods on old master drawings it is the most hamfisted thing ever and looks nothing like the old master. The construction and perspective simply aren't there.

The guy is absolute amateur hour.

You know why he is so popular? Because normie art schools that hold minute long short poses recommended him to fix the student's lack of gesture drawing. It's "too stiff" and other nebulous garbage that teachers that have no fucking idea what they are saying have thrown around and completely eroded student's confidence.

What does the student remember? "Be like Vilppu". So anon, for the last two decades Vilppu has been indoctrinated into every art student in the US.

>>2951381
I never seen is grammatically correct you fucking neanderthal.

>>2951390
I *have* never seen...

-or-

I never saw...

You fucking troglodyte.

>>2950366
Then don't pick up the parts you don't like and leave it. No one has ever said you have to copy an artist's style to a T forever and ever if you're learning something from them.

thru

>>2951390
>>2951405
its ok hes just a nigger.

>>2950366
anon, the mirror isn't a drawing...

>>2951386
my art class never mentioned vlippu
you're wrong

So what is the best method to master anatomy then ?
(I preffer video over book)

Kinda surprised to see so many anons shitting on grandma vilppu...

Vilppu is good but it's okay if you don't like him. Just use what works best for you and makes the most sense

>>2951088
>Steve Huston has some work worth of note
>shitty stiff boxers
>noname
Ayyy. Huston is memetrash too.

>>2951088
> Even old shitheads like Bridgman
>studied at ecole des beaux-arts
>studied under Gerome
>taught Loomis and rockwell among many other illustrators
>amazing drawing even though they were made with a long stick with charcoal on it
fuck off Bridgman is god tier

>>2951680
Study the body. Get a general anatomy book, learn the major muscle masses, and how they move. Learn the joints, how they move. Learn the skeleton, how it moves.

You can study anatomy anywhere there are people you can observe. Sketching is even better. It's just experience. You can't cheat, or cram the information in one sitting.

For video, look for general anatomy classes online.

>>2949371
i really like that drawing, even though i've never been a fan of mixing grey and sanguine

>>2951390
>/ic/

>>2951733
anatomy classes online are so expensive, anywhere to find a videos ?
someone have a mega ?

>>2951721
I know this is probably but, but still, in what world are his boxers stiff? And he's not a no name, he's pretty well known for his fine art and is well respected. I was a fan of his years ago before I even knew he was a teacher, and before he started teaching online at all.

>>2951989
it's bait, i haven't looked at huston's boxer paintings for a while but i think in a few he kind of emphasizes an upside down L shape, like with an upright torso and one glove extended mid-punch, and i guess if you're an idiot on /ic/ you could think those were stiff. i more vividly recall the ones where the boxers are in a clinch and those aren't stiff at all so, yeah, bait i think.

sometimes though his painting technique can be a bit dauby, even for what he's going for, looks a bit like the photoshop oil painting filter lol, if i recall correctly.

>>2951088
Lil angry that buying a Vilppy book doesn't equate to immediate god-tier artworks?

It's fine my man, just count to 10

>>2951120
>These guys dedicated their lives to teaching instead of building their own body of work. so they are good teachers.

'Those who can't do, teach.'

There is an experiential discrepancy between what they do, and what actually working artists do. All of these teachers are trash. They've got absolutely nothing to show for themselves. None of them are successful working artists, and never were, and some of them have outright bad finished work. Michael Hampton for example. He's actually pure garbage. This isn't some /ic/ Dunning Krueger-ism, his finished work is actually pure undeniable trash.

So that really raises the question, do you want to draw unfinished gesture box people, or actual finished works?

It also really doesn't help that all these methods they teach are very new and not even necessarily widely used. Before the 20th century nobody was doing this 'analytical figure drawing' bullshit. Some of the best figure draftsmen were around during the Early-Renaissance to the late Baroque period, and they seemed to do just fine without 'muh cylinders'.
Most artists these days aren't even using these methods. Go watch any half decent artists draw (find a youtube video or whatever) and chances are you'll just seem them scribble some shit in.

Not all teachers are bad, and you shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel, but a lot of these people are fucking memes.

>>2953355

So who do you consider a good anatomy teacher?

>>2953355
What irks me about the teaching of analytical figure drawing is that there is a cliff that doesn't explain (analytically) how to go from constructing on paper to in your head (and from imagination), other than just grinding out a visual library from real models.

But if Im just grinding out a visual library practicing from life/images (every single teaching artist does this for their demos, from Vilppu to Huston to Proko etc), then the analytical trickery seems kind of pointless.

Who do I gi to to learn gesture drawing? /beg/ told me vilppu. I tried Proko but I still struggle to understand the concepts

>>2953380
what do people like you who ask this question want to draw exactly?

gesture drawing is just an exercise to get you to take note of the overall gesture of the figure, they're not supposed to be pretty pictures, in classes you generally draw 4 or 5 right over the top of one another, so you're nice and loose for the longer poses. 'gesture drawing' isn't even an art term, it's a teaching term.

what is it that you think you're not doing when you try and do it yourself?

>>2953391
Well, I just started drawing last week. As in as someone in their 20s, this is the first time I actually started drawing something that wasnt profanities in high school textbooks. I went to /beg/ and was suggested to practice gestures, but I dont understand flow, movement, gestures of an image.

I watched Proko and while I can see what he's doing I'm unable to find gestures in any of the images I see and this I can't really make good S or C curves. I just want me sources to turn my perspective around.

>>2953403
kk, well i think the best thing for that is a book called 'force' by mike mattesi, it's on the internet here and there in pdf form. i have it on my hard-drive too, but i don't know where i'd upload it.

>>2953406
I'll google it, thanks anon, sorry for the slight hijack.

File: sta.jpg (48KB, 383x500px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 383x500px

>>2953375
I don't know quite frankly. Something like pic related (even though not strictly art related) is probably a far better anatomy resource than 90% of 'art' anatomy books out there just by virtue of it showcasing the muscles in clean diagrams in a variety of poses instead of honing in on how to draw the femur or something stupid.

Also, just a lot of drawing naked people. You're training to be an artist, not a medical illustrator.

To be honest I'm not even a good artist, so you probably shouldn't listen to me, but this is just what I've noticed after drawing for a couple of years myself, and investigating the art process of several artist. There are so many guys that 'just draw' and apply themselves without being held down by a bunch of analytical concepts and they seem to be some of the best artists around. Meanwhile most guys pushing techniques are almost always the mediocre ones (with exceptions, of course).
Historically there isn't much precedent for analytical drawing either. Speaking of history, Michaelangelo actually famously shat on Durer for his geometric approach to the figure - which people like to eagerly post together with Cambiaso box people in defence of construction drawing's historical validity - so there's that.

>>2953379
Yes, this is something I've also noticed. If you have to draw that much from life, isn't it simply the act of drawing from life making you better, instead of some arbitrary technique?


I wish more high level artist, and not (((teachers)) or memesters on the internet, would speak out on how they learned to draw and to what extent they apply techniques.

>>2953434
This guy is right.
All art teachers are """"memetrash"""""".

>>2953355
>>2953434
>>2953439
“To see the teacher clearly, look at the students. They are his work of art.”

If the artists YOU admire recommend a certain anatomy book, there's merit in studying it. Don't just blindly follow recommendations on /ic/. People throw a lot of names around here, praising X and shunning Y, but ultimately it's down to taste. Do some digging until you find what books/methods YOUR favorite artists (plural) used to learn and try those. If they've never cracked open an anatomy book and say they "just kept drawing" then go fucking do that.

This isn't a guarantee that you'll become as good as your idols. But it might bring you closer to understanding how they think.

>>2953379
you're not just building a visual library, you're building an understanding of the human body and how everything flows together along with it, the point of grinding is to get an innate understanding of all those concepts so you can do them without thinking
>>2953355
i don't know what teachers you're talking about but teachers like Watts have a ton of stuff to show for themselves, and more relevant to that they can shit out amazing shit in 1/100th of the time it would take you to do it. also early renaissance artist didn't have multi billion entertainement industries and crazy amount of variety that's out there at the moment, so they didn't need methods to make really good pictures really fast.
also i don't know who your really good artists are, but every single actual really good artist ive seen shows an understanding of these concepts, and they're usually also 40+ years old, because these concepts take a really long time to internalize

>>2953623
well solid is relative, from what i've seen you can really easily tell when someone hasn't had any form of actual training by looking at their work, of course after that it's just a matter of taste, but these concepts are widespread for a reason, they just work really well whether you discover them yourselves or just learn then naturally, and some of this shit can make your life so much easier it's insane

File: michelangelo.jpg (1MB, 900x1278px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 900x1278px

>>2953610
Like I said, not all teachers are bad, but for every Watts there are a 10000 Proko's. Serve the people a bunch of meme methods, and then when you try and draw something from imagination shit looks mediocre as fuck. Never work worked in the industry either. No applicable drawings skills either because the nigga can't draw anything but portraits and figures in generic poses (from reference). I probably follow people on Tumblr with better imaginative drawing skills than Proko.

Also no matter how good Watts actually is, I'm pretty sure that nigga never actually worked in the industry. Do you want to draw naked people from reference all the time, or do you actually wanna do some real nigga shit. (But I will admit that Watts is for all intents and purposes a master).

>also early renaissance artist didn't have multi billion entertainement industries and crazy amount of variety that's out there at the moment, so they didn't need methods to make really good pictures really fast.

I fail to see the line of reasoning here. Old masters had top tier figure drawing without any of the methods being peddled today, which calls into question the validity of modern methods. The 'entertainement' industry is beside the point here.

>but every single actual really good artist ive seen shows an understanding of these concepts

You can have an understanding of these concepts without explicitly falling for the Vilppu meme. Old masters obviously understood form but you won't find so much as a cylinder in any surviving Michaelangelo drawing for example.

>>2953645
>I'm pretty sure that nigga never actually worked in the industry.
he did, did heavy metal covers, worked in concepting and movie posters, did gallery work, he did a ton of shit before his atelier, plus hes got his dad as a teacher who's so fucking good and fast at drawing literally everything that Rockstar asked him personally to work for them.

>Old masters had top tier figure drawing without any of the methods being peddled today, which calls into question the validity of modern methods. The 'entertainement' industry is beside the point here.
they also had an abundance of models, time and money, which isn't present in todays world, they didn't have the entertainment industry which has demands that they never even considered (variety of settings, different architectures, characters in extremely dynamic perspectives, comic books that require hundreds of panels, animation that requires thousands of fucking drawings, all of that on tight deadlines), and their methods are simply not adapted to these demands.
>Old masters obviously understood form but you won't find so much as a cylinder in any surviving Michaelangelo drawing for example.
i don't know what the fuck you're talking about here, you can clearly see the understanding of cylinders and spheres in the very drawing you posted, plus some of these renaissance artists actually burned their studies and preliminary drawings, because it would harm their image as geniuses (i think i heard that specifically about da vinci).

>>2953793
>he did

Fair enough. Like I said I don't have a problem with Watts, anyway.

>they also had an abundance of models, time and money,

Except they didn't. They were, much like today, craftsmen working on tight deadlines.

>industry which has demands that they never even considered

Figure drawing is figure drawing. I'm sure if Michaelangelo decided to draw comic books today he wouldn't magically switch up his figure drawing method.

>i don't know what the fuck you're talking about here

Not surprising, considering you have the reading comprehension of a retarded nigger. I said 'Old masters obviously understood form'. But where in the drawing do you actually see a real cylinder, nowhere that's right. You're doing the same bullshit Vilppu does when he traces cubes and boxes over old masters drawings to give his method more credence.

>plus some of these renaissance artists actually burned their studies and preliminary drawings

In all of art history there is not a single piece of documentation (except for those shitty Cambiaso drawings people keep posting) to indicate that any artist pre 20th century used drawing methods that are similar to the ones used today.

But then again, you don't even need to turn to old masters. There are plenty of contemporary artist who don't do any of that shit either, and they manage just fine.

Let me sum it up for you:

1.There is no historical precedent for construction as it is taught today.
2.Most teachers peddling the method, are not actually working artists that have participated in the industry, and have little to show for their efforts. Some don't even have proper finished works (see Michael Hampton for the most obvious example).
3.There are contemporary artists that do not employ these methods and get by just fine.

If you wanna draw boxes and cylinders, draw away. I'm just trying to let others know that all these meme teachers /ic/ so often praises aren't all they're made out to be.

>>2953849
Kim Jung Gi recommends drawing boxes

>>2953849
>Figure drawing is figure drawing. I'm sure if Michaelangelo decided to draw comic books today he wouldn't magically switch up his figure drawing method.
of course he would what the fuck, drawing from live models and reference is completely different from setting up a scene with dynamic perspective from imagination in a comic book, which no one fucking did in the renaissance.

>Except they didn't. They were, much like today, craftsmen working on tight deadlines.
their "tight deadlines" are fucking nothing compared to modern entertainement industry what are you even talking about, you don't get to work for four years on a painting nowadays.


>'Old masters obviously understood form'. But where in the drawing do you actually see a real cylinder
it boggles me that you can't understand what you're saying is retarded as fuck, you can't draw like what was in that picture if you can't draw a cylinder, the perspective and shading of cylinders is present, of course the finished drawing isn't gonna be a literal cylinder, it's only present in the artists mind.


>In all of art history there is not a single piece of documentation (except for those shitty Cambiaso drawings people keep posting) to indicate that any artist pre 20th century used drawing methods that are similar to the ones used today.
Those methods came from artists that are way better than you studying those very drawings and analyzing how they work though.
>there are plenty of contemporary artist who don't do any of that shit either
again, just because they're not literally drawing cylinders doesn't mean they're not using it, it's very obvious (to someone competent) when these methods are understood.
and like other anon said Kim draws finished pictures directly, but his process is filled with thinking of boxes and perspective.
also
>1.There is no historical precedent for construction as it is taught today.
is wrong, especially when you look at russia which heavily uses those methods.

>>2951386
Before I got into drawing and /ic/, I was browsing /b/ one night while I was high and somebody posted a drawing of a man sitting in the lotus position and I was amazed at how life like the figure was, like it could stand up and walk away any second. Turns out it was Vilppu.

>>2950366
>>2950491
>i think it's ugly therefore objectively it must be unnatural and no aesthetic sense