Loomis is a stupid book

>>2979546
Your art is shit, with or without Loomis.

>>2979546
Andrew Loomis isn't s book, but a person. You sound confused OP.

File: cc1bdb12feb51c3b3bf744777a5fae9b.jpg (29KB, 236x686px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 236x686px

loomis wipes his ass with you, maybe if you kept reading and studying you could make something other than snarky comics. one of the rare examples of someone who could teach and produce.

>>2979550
My art isn't shit. I'm better than majority of /ic/ you pretentious asshole. Just because I don't bother with that stupid book doesn't mean I'm not good. >>2979554
Whatever, You know what I meant >>2979555
Looks boring

File: 888fa64faedd4907ade8d5168889895d.jpg (174KB, 991x1320px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 991x1320px

>>2979558
anything loomis has made is a hundred times less boring than your shit. it's time to play solo russian roulette with a fully loaded gun m8.

>>2979558
post oc fag.

File: 1471080554128.png (35KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 625x626px

pic related is the entirety of /ic/

File: 90400423.jpg (50KB, 680x510px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 680x510px

>>2979546

File: 1490071163326.jpg (52KB, 1000x584px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1000x584px

>>2979546

▲
▲ ▲

File: 1485835325205.png (23KB, 200x401px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 200x401px

>>2979546
>>2979565
>>2979634
>>2979637

>>2979559
that's really your example? a stiff family portrait of a stiff white family? lol when you go shopping all the families around must blow your mind with excitement..wait are you some kinda of weird familiaphile?

File: hemp-rope.jpg (89KB, 1000x714px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1000x714px

>>2979639
Diversity is our strength!

File: 24cf782d67fb57425092276ddcfc2c7d.jpg (168KB, 640x576px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 640x576px

>>2979639
this is what he specialized in. if you want to draw explosions or spaceships look up someone else. if you want to learn how to draw appealing realistic heads then study loomis. I know you're all here because you want to draw anime dickgirls but even those require some basic understanding of form and anatomy so study loomis or find someone else you like.
I know you're all being cheeky and trolling but a lot of art is boring and a grind so if you can't bring yourself to be able to draw "boring heads" you won't be able to draw cool anime girls either.

>>2979558

He has to spell it out for retards like you, but it clearly doesn't work.

So go read a different book then.

>>2979546
>>2979558
Never gonna make it.

File: 1494728341522.jpg (209KB, 756x1100px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 756x1100px

>>2979546

>>2979672
The vibes I get from this are awesome

>>2979546

He said that the eyes and checkbones are below the area of the eyebrows. Be sure to copy the plates.

>>2980030

But yeah, he's not ideal for beginners as a lot of advanced information flies over their head. He's more suited for intermediate artists.

>>2980063
how is huston->loomis?
im talking about doing huston exercises relatively thoroughly and then moving on immediately (already understand perspective and drawing from observation)

>>2980067

I can't be certain as I haven't used his book before, but if it can make you understand Loomis' stuff easily by teaching you construction and bodyparts/muscles, then it's probably okay.

I personally understood the main landmarks from Bridgman's Constructive Anatomy, but I'm not sure if it would click or not for others since I'm a unique case. I only understood art if it's broken down or constructed into 3d forms

>>2980085
it's a very endearing book that walks you through structure and gesture
im excited for bridgman, i want to check it out when i am better, thanks

Post your work

kys

>>2980098

Thanks for considering my view, and wishing you good luck with art. It's tough to tackle as it's not linear as other subjects, but the end becomes very rewarding because of the lengthy journey.

You will reach your goal.

>>2980139
<3
thanks, im excited to keep learning and i hope you are too! have a nice day anon

File: MikeRomelaid.jpg (41KB, 560x375px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 560x375px

>>2979546
Your delusions of grandure are delicious.

>>2979546
>that chicken scratch on the chair
holy fuck

>>2979546
On the one hand, I recognize Loomis as a great teacher of the fundamentals.

However, I find it impossible to learn by looking at someone else's drawing of life. The whole purpose is to draw FROM life, so why do so many art books teach you about the form with only drawings? I understand things like a skeleton in a pose or the muscular system can't really be photographed, but when it's just a nude human, just take a photo or at least show a side by side to a real person in the same pose.

Maybe it's just me but i've never been able to learn this way. I'd rather draw from an actual human being instead and use drawings to supplement how I want to stylize what I've learned instead.

In short, I don't think criticizing Loomis as the god of foundations is a bad thing, but OP should take my advice and just start drawing real people and seeing how parts of the body move and interact with one another naturally and study the muscles and skeleton in breakdowns (draw a bunch of hands, draw a bunch of torsos, etc. knowing where the bones sit atleast will help).

But if you're not learning from Loomis, don't fucking read loomis. Fine another source.

File: art-in-noir-andrew-loomis.jpg (65KB, 709x448px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 709x448px

you can shit on Loomis when you're a better artist than he was.

(nobody who's ever posted on this board has been better at drawing than Andrew Loomis was)

>>2979639
>a stiff family portrait of a stiff white family?

portrait of an American family before they let your charity-case ancestors in to freeload, faggot.

>>2982411
>I find it impossible to learn by looking at someone else's drawing of life.

Read Loomis, rather than flip through it. He's not teaching something to be memorized, but an intuitive and logical approach to drawing to be applied to both your observations from life and imagination.

File: 6499975a66de315df3ded28c0f15dc63.png (663KB, 888x952px) Image search: [Google]

663KB, 888x952px

OP, maybe this guy's work is more your style
His name is Ardnew Lewis

>>2979546
I understand not getting Loomis, because it takes time. It doesn't work for people that half-ass learning his principles. His words are only supplements for the principles he's teaching through the drawings in the work. You won't learn purely through reading or looking at his work. You have to apply and internalize the concepts by using them.

>>2979559
>solo russian roulette with a fully loaded gun
kek

>>2979639
>stiff
reconfirmed OP doesn't know what he's talking about, just sage and hide guys

>>2979546
If you're expecting to learn how to draw stylized cartoons from books that teach you fundamentals in ultra-realistic drawing then you're a fucking retard. You have to learn the basic principles and have the basic skills so you can then stylize something and make it your own. Learn how to properly draw shit and learn about proportions, anatomy, rendering, etc. Faggot.

>>2982708
>just learn to draw lol
I think my brain is broken, been drawing for thirty odd years and I'm still at draw a box beginner level.

Sup T.J.?

>>2982708
The basics of cartooning is based on spheres and tubes. You need to understand form of simple 3d shapes but you don't need to learn figure drawing unless you intend to add tons of detail to your characters. Figure drawing for cartooning is a meme.

>>2979546
>can't draw worth a fuck
>bitching

>It's always those same ugly looking caucasian heads that don't really apply to the stuff i wanna learn..
If you want to learn cartoons, then you want to learn this shit. Construction doesn't change because you're caricaturing things, proportions do. And to caricature in an effective way, you need to know proportions.
>>2979558
>My art isn't shit. I'm better than majority of /ic/ you pretentious asshole.
The only people I've ever seen say this are people who are WORSE than the majority. It's you're ego talking mate, you're as shit as everyone else here. But hey, this is the critique board, so let's critique your comic

>did not apply perspective to the chair
>did not construct the body well
>lacks convincing forms
>most effort went pretty obviously into the head, which also lacks convincing forms and appears flat because of poor perspective of the nose and ears and eyes
>poor gesture results in stiff pose
>crab hands
>elbows do not work that way
>tube neck
>tube legs
>knees do not work that way
>fabric is painted on rather than something laying over the body
>book lacks perspective
>liberal use of copy+paste so only the eyes were redrawn, why do you hate drawing
>inconsistent hatching that's unnecessary because of the gray tone and does nothing to establish value or texture
>chicken scratch lines
I'm sure other people can add onto this but I figure that's a good starting point
>>2979639
>stiff
are u fuckin' serius m8
They're very relaxed and fluid, esp the children.
>>2982954
Really because animators fucking do that shit kind of a lot