Masters of Anatomy

>>3027181
no it's a shitty cash grab relying on name recognition and won't teach you shit

>any of that alien shit
>ideal

At least the guy on the left is obviously cartoonish, the guy in the center looks like some sort of horror movie shit.

>>3027181
yeah if you need bases for adoptables

No. I have it and i regret it.

File: 9d50a5b6449409f2c0b5c9309717a82e.png (17KB, 85x86px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 85x86px

>ideal

File: kill me.jpg (301KB, 2048x2048px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 2048x2048px

>Mark Crilley is in the book

Holy shit, is this real life?!

No it is not fucking worth it. This book is a complete sham and the people who created it are conmen ripping off aspiring artists.

The book is advertised as an instructional book for artists to help them learn anatomy. The book does absolutely nothing of the sort.

The only material covered in the book is basic proportion. The content of the book is made up entirely of different artists drawing a character from three angles, with notes indicating the proportions used.

It's fundamentally flawed at a conceptual level. A book on proportion where the learning material is 100 drawings from 100 artists in 100 styles, all with different proportions, doesn't teach a fucking thing about proportion.

The drivel on their website just reinforces the nonsense:

>It became evident in the early stages of research that well-drawn examples of neutral anatomy turnarounds like Loomis's were rare and difficult to find.

You only need the basic diagrams Loomis gives, and the only thing the diagrams have to do is communicate the information. There is no need for them to look pretty.

>Though Loomis's sketches are a fantastic tool, we believe that a single reference is limiting and counter-intuitive to creative minds.

Loomis's diagrams give you the foundation, which is realism. A creative mind will use them as a launchpad for discovering their own style. A creative mind doesn't need to be spoonfed style.

>The biggest problem with current anatomy books is the creative disadvantage of having only one artist who is trying to appeal to the broadest market possible. Popular or experimental anatomy is too risky to publish using this model.

An anatomy book's job is to explain anatomy. Its job is not to demonstrate style. That is the job of the artist.

The people this book is targeted at are aspiring artists who don't know how to learn and are looking to develop their own style. It's a disingenuous, exploitative and harmful piece of shit.

>>3029634

Ran out of space but I like this bit of bullshit from them:

>This diminishes the concept of inventive design. In the end you're left with a heavy volume where only a handful of pages are of any use.

Says the people selling a 300 page book on a subject covered by Loomis in just a few pages.

>>3027181
Buy it and scan it. It looks pretty good if it has big names in it. Anatomy can be taught in many different ways too, but in the end it's still up to you to understand what you're doing. Books can't teach that, they just feed you the information you didn't have before.

>>3029634
Thanks for this anon. I remember when they launched their kickstarter, I was amazed by all the different artists in he project and wanted to donate but the price and shipping to my country were too expensive I gave up on it.

I'm glad I did.

>>3029643

At that time I was doing my best to convince people on their Youtube video not to back it. I preached the good word of Loomis and I think I reached a few.

Plebs gonna pleb though.

Now they're coming out with two more.

One is a book on design, where the artists are commissioned to draw their interpretation of eight Robin Hood characters.

Another is a book of stylized anatomy poses.

The anatomy one looks like obvious shit (why couldn't it have been a book of real poses?), but I can actually see merit in the design one because those kind of exercises can be useful to examine.

>>3027181
loli saw jazza flipping thru the pages and its just the same pose drawn by different artists with no comentary or anything and most of the drawings didnt even look good.

As someone who came across it in a used book store once, the only reason to buy Masters of Anatomy is the name talent and their interpretations of a turnaround. But that just makes it an overpriced art book that's also useless as a learning tool.

>>3027181
I remember when the kickstarter launched. I knew it was gonna be a fucking scam, posted about it at a couple places and everyone thought I was just a hater. It took them a year or so to even get the books shipped and when they arrived everyone was crying online about how horrible it is. The guy who ran the kickstarter campaign isn't even an artist, just some random indian dude in Canada. Amazing how many people fell for such an obvious scam. Just fucking search google for drawings done by your favorite artists

>>3027181
>MASTERS of Anatomy
>no sexual organs at all
>not even nip nops
Is this what it takes to be a MASTER nowadays?

>>3029634
Good review. Thanks for the insight.