My sister doesn't know who Andrew Loomis is and said because

>>2991827
Learn what techniques? Loomis isn't the only person that can teaching drawing. Have you tried giving her the animators survivor guide? Or maybe have her listen to animation artist interviews?

she's right Andrew loomis is more geared towards people wanting to draw heads

>>2991827
She's not wrong.

Animation is a whole different monster. Sure, a lot of the fundies crossover, but a lot also don't.

Imo, most artists, particularly those interested in comics, benefit from learning a bit of animation. However, not all animators benefit from learning a lot of the fundamentals of art.

Things like color, rendering, painting, line weight, lighting, and even in some cases, anatomy, are totally useless to an animator. Basic construction, and perspective are most useful for them. From there, it's gesture, and then all the core fundamentals of animation, all of which are quite different from what we learn. I mean things like timing, holding frames, cutting, flow, cinematographic language, etc...

vilppu is much more useful if one is/wants to become an animator but even then, he's not the only way to learn

keep in mind that people learned to draw and animate amazingly before loomis or vilppu were even alive

Loomis is a convenient resource because he addresses most of the shit beginners are consistently bad at, it's not hard to see why he became a meme because 90% of the time someone was doing something wrong in the /beg/ thread, it was something Loomis instructed on.

That doesn't mean the guy's a god and his books are the gospels.

>>2991852
Are you fucking retarded? Anatomy, line weight, and color are all important for an animator. Just because their drawings are Simplified doesn't mean they aren't aware of the anatomy. You need solid anatomy understanding In order to simplify things correctly

>>2991852
can you please stay on >>>/v/

File: what the f-ck.gif (818KB, 255x231px) Image search: [Google]

818KB, 255x231px

>>2991852
>line weight
>lighting
>anatomy
>totally useless to an animator

File: Richard Williams - Time to Draw.png (491KB, 748x2776px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 748x2776px

>>2991852
Anatomy is among the single most important things an animator must learn. Literally what?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8EnCabl29w

>>2991885
Not all animation is anime sorry to say. You forget that most western animation is heavily stylized, moreso than anime is. Hell, most western animation is 3D these days. Of which, an animator benefits ZERO from learning Loomis or other art fundamentals.

A lot of 2D animation in the west is also flash based, or working with very flat or cartoony figures.

Not only that, but you very rarely see proper line weight being put to use in Japanese animation. Take a good look at it, 90% it, aside from very stylized sakuga, like that of BahiJD, uses flat, thin lines with ZERO weight to them. Look at the work of Yutaka Nakamura for example. He very rarely adds weight to his lines. And honestly, Japanese animators are probably at the top of their game when it comes to 2D animation, being both very skilled animators AND very talented artists with a strong grasp of the fundamentals of BOTH skillsets. Most people will never reach that level, especially in the west where there isn't much of a market left for that anymore.

Point being, depending on what her goals might be, it might not be the best use of her time to learn Loomis, or a lot of the art fundamentals desu. Animation is a whole different monster with a whole different set of fundamentals you have to learn, many of which in fact go COUNTER to what you need to be a great artist. Perhaps it'd be better for her to learn the fundies of animation FIRST, and then splash in some stuff likr anatomy and such it. After all, it's not like Loomis is the only one to teach construction. Also, animators tend to use a different style of construction than what we use. Proportional perfection is often ignored in favor of fluidity, thus something like Vilpuu would be better desu, as someone else pointed out.

>>2991902
Richard Williams is a meme, traditionally animated cartoons are made out of a gooey substance the helps convey weight, anatomy lessons won't help you get that.

>>2991905
cont.


There is no, ONE WAY to learn art. Depending on your personal goals, its wiser to ignore certain elements in favor of things more in tune with what you wanna learn. For example, what's the point of learning color theory if what you wanna do is make manga? Why not learn toning and line weight instead?

If her goal is to be like Bahi JD, abd become another Westerner who broke into the Japanase Animation industry, then yes, she'll need to learn stuff like anatomy, and etc... but she'll also need a lot of luck desu, as Bahi JD got hired as he's pretty much a prodigy.

>>2991905
get off my board

>>2991913
This is not your board dogbro. Get a grip, and stop shitposting.

>>2991852
>>2991907
You don't even draw OR animate lmoa. Don't try and give people advice on subjects you know nothing about Tardo

>>2991918
Telling you something isn't a shitpost I'm afraid.

>>2991905
> western animation is heavily stylized
When drawing in any heavily stylized fashion, it benefits infinitely to understand proper anatomy, gesture, landmarks, etc. Animating is no different.

What is that thing you do to fill every new frame with content? Draw. So learning how to draw is pretty vital.

As for 3D, that ties in with sculpture. With Sculpture, or modeling a 3D T-pose mesh in Maya, you still want to have a good understanding of anatomy and gesture(for the actual animating part), same as you would if you were drawing.

Are there other principles to animating that are also important? Yeah. Physics now potentially become a factor of your work. You have to learn how to pace motions correctly so that they looks natural. You have to make sure that everything accelerates and decelerates convincingly. You also have to make sure that as you redraw, you keep the original drawing consistent throughtout the frames. Resizing is a common beginner mistake, for example.

But learning how to draw is beneficial to any genre of visual art. Sometimes more or less, but always to some extent.

>>2991921
>You don't even animate
Fair enough, then let's hear it from someone who does, and we can all shut up then:

https://youtu.be/GLitGhyqnnM

>>2991937
I agree that you have to learn how to draw, I never denied that fact. 2D animation is closely tied to drawing, you can't separate the two.

But going heavily into anatomy and the like isn't necessary. Honestly, basic drawing skills is all most animators really need. Especially western animators. Look at Ren and Stimpy for example. Or hell, the Looney Toons. The construction for Bugs, and Daffy, and Elmer, etc... is very different to that of a normal human, and Anatomy honestly helps very little there. You can genuinely learn to construct cartoons without ever needing to pick up Loomis or learn the proportions of a face. What matters is that you stop symbol drawing and think in 3D forms. And even then, look at stuff like the Regular Show, or Adventure time, or Rick and Morty, or South Park.

As for 3D, the person who sculpts the mesh, and the person who animates it are two different people usually, and the animator is really more of s puppeteer in that regard desu. A 3D animator can totally get by with ZERO drawing skills whatsoever.

anyone who says you dont need to know how to draw in order to animate doesnt know how to animate

you dont *need* to of course but your animations wont look good if you cant draw well...

File: le disapproving dad face.gif (1MB, 320x256px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x256px

>>2991958
I don't need to watch a ten minute video by a mediocre flash animator when any animator worth crap will tell you to learn anatomy.

>look at Ren and Stimpy for Example

Sure:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-af9BnT38V8

You're apparently so ignorant about this subject you don't even know it when it's staring you right in the face, or else you wouldn't have used a show that constantly segues into anatomical sight-gags and gross-out humor as an example.

Yes, you can TECHNICALLY be a (shit) animator and not know anatomy just like you can TECHNICALLY be a (shit) illustrator and not know anatomy, I don't think anyone's disputing that. Saying that knowing anatomy is "useless" for an animator however is patently false, at least when you're posting that on any board other than >>>/3/.

File: fe6904fa69fd2d914ae64cbdc62d51a39b936daa648d24f1f77870ef377e152d.jpg (68KB, 992x744px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 992x744px

>>2991838
i can't tell with this board anymore. i just

>>2991958
>A 3D animator can totally get by with ZERO drawing skills whatsoever.
So can a concept artist. Still not recommended if you want to master the craft, and the more you know, the more companies will want you and pay you for your knowledge.

If your point is simply that drawing skills aren't mandatory, I agree. If you're saying they make no difference, I disagree. Respectfully.

>>2991827

She's actually right. In animation pacing, proper gesture and generally understanding cinematography is more important. Structure, especially drawn in Loomis or Robertson way makes figure more stiff and you really don't want to go overboard with it. /ic/ is butthurt about Disney Channel "noodle characters", but truth is that they are that way for specific reason which makes them easier to animate or transform.

Try pausing sometimes some animation and catching in-between frame. It doesn't look like anything, just blob of shapes. (Anyway, animation that is done nowadays isn't even done necessairly frame-by-frame if you aren't Korean-monkey working for your Japanese overlord).

What is more important is to be consistent, so drawing in proper perspective - but it's again not what /ic/ is thinking with watching a meme 90h Olson lessons. You work digitally with animation, so you just lay out the grid, someone draws the background on it and the other guy places character there. Often simple 3D mock-up that can be done fast is used and then people paint over it, especially in scenes where camera heavily rotates in weird angles.

Nobody fucking cares about Loomis and no, you don't have to read the fucking book to know that the character has to be drawn in this and that proportions on a transformed grid. And really, you don't need to be super anal about it too, especially in those fucking 10-20 minute cartoons with flat colors and simple characters characters change in 1 second exaggerated expression 10 times.

Actually look at this intro, tell me how Loomis can help you with doing something like that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hJ5ecrpp8k

>>2992211

Oh and after you tell me this, explain to me how the complete anatomy by Peck is important to memorize.

Jesus fuck, you know why "never going to make it" is true for /ic/? Because you people don't even draw but go for solutions to some antiquated books that overall just waste your time.

>>2992214
>>2992211

To add to this at the end - even "frame by frame" animation starts to become antiquated concept because more of more stuff is just made in vectors/flash and you animate by dragging and transforming shapes.

This is the most retarded thread I've seen all year.
I'm almost impressed.

>>2992065
>If your point is simply that drawing skills aren't mandatory, I agree. If you're saying they make no difference, I disagree. Respectfully.
That's exactly what I'm saying.

Ofc drawing always HELPS, but it's not mandatory, definitely not for 3D. I've worked with 3D animators in the past, and none of them knew anything about drawing.

>>2992007
No one is saying you don't need to know how to draw, if it's 2D, ofc you need to. But you don't need to learn all the same fundamentals.

OP made this thread to criticize his sister who has never heard of Loomis, and we're saying she's right, as animation is a totally different skillset. Yes, there is a bit of overlap, but basic drawing skills are really all you need for animation if you're going for western cartoony stuff.

Someone like Loomis doesn't benefit an animator as much as say Vilpuu who is more gesture focused. The understanding of anatomy of an animator typically isn't as strong as it for an artist.

>>2992024
Well, considering stuff like Chowder, Rick and Morty, Family Guy, Adventure Time, South Park, Gumball etc... all of which has an utter disregard for anatomy, is most prevalent in animation today. I'd say most animators are "shit" by your standards.

That is ofc because you don't understand or appreciate stuff like timing, gesture, pacing, cinematography, etc...

I said it once at the beginning of this thread, and I'll say it again, there is more than one way to learn art, and it all depends on your personal goals. Why would you waste your time learning elements you don't need, instead of putting that focus into practicing the ones you DO. Yes, animators need to learn how to draw, but no, they should not start down the same path we do, it's a totally different skillset. If you fail to grasp this simple concept, then idk what to tell you. Art education is not one size fits all.

>>2992338
Is this what false popularity does to your brain?

>>2991856
>vilppu is much more useful
how is it more useful, it's exactly the same method

File: 134111070672.jpg (81KB, 573x548px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 573x548px

>this thread

>>2991852
See animators need a small basis in fundies but they don't need to go hardcore LOOMIS levels of study on all of it. Color, line weight, lighting, and anatomy are good tools.

But all animators first and foremost put ANIMATION fundamentals first because that's what relevant.

It's people like storyboard artists and character/prop/environment designers that need a bigger basis in regular art fundamentals.

Source: Went to school for animation (Didn't get past fundies stage because the school was shit)

Animation = multiple drawings.
Loomis helps you to improve your drawings,right?
Therefore Loomis MIGHT improve your animations. Get it?

It's not mandatory, but it helps A LOT.

>>2992211
Please post on this board once you've made it, I can't wait to hear how well you've done in the art world while avoiding anything "antiquated," and see what sort of revolutionary additions to the scene you've made