Hogarth is underrated

>>3107087
bridgeman.

step up nigga

>>3107087
I never really liked his style but im curious about his books.

>>3107103
same i think the artstyle is really ugly but if you actually try to analyze/study you learn a LOT

Glen Keane studied Hogarth too. The guy might not draw perfectly representationally but it's certainly better than George Shitman's inscrutable scribbling, that's for sure.

>>3107098
that's for retards

>>3107105
i agree

>>3107087
Michael Hampton.

Normies, normies everywhere.

File: anigif_enhanced-10689-1411512748-4.gif (498KB, 449x336px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 449x336px

>>3107124

>Michael Hampton.

>>3107087
>why do people talk so much shit about hogarth?
because his style is not appealing, so it scares beginners and amatuers away. but he does that on purpose to bulge out every muscle so that you can easily distinguish them.

>>3107132
What is bad about Hampton? are you memeing or something?

>>3107149

Just another shitposting piece of shit who can barely draw animu.

File: 515GN4NQRFL._AC_UL320_SR244,320_.jpg (24KB, 244x320px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 244x320px

>>3107087
Hogarth's anatomy is... not for everyone.

>>3107087
Following the steps of some talented fast learner who taught himself to paint is not a smart choice. Not everybody can be a marko djurdjevic.

Hogarth is great. Obviously you don't want to draw all your figures to look like balloon people like he does, but his work is great to study if you want to learn what muscles are where and how they attach and overlap and that sort of thing.

File: baki-son-of-ogre-3059423[1].jpg (373KB, 1200x884px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1200x884px

>>3107244
so someone studied it

>>3107258
bitch who the fuck talked about becoming "a marko djurdjevic" fuck off

>>3107264
exactly that's what i always say

I was pleasantly surprised too. Without his and Hamm's book I would have a harder time mastering Loomis.

I went like this: Loomis > Hogarth > Hamm > Loomis for the same subject(let's say Head), when I reach the end of the chapter/subject I go to the other's book or start a new subject. They complement each other rather nicely.

While Loomis' the best artist, his explanations are long winded and he gives out the better "exercises". Hamm's books are mostly suited for quick and dirty references. Hogarth's the most in-depth when it comes to explanations.

Haven't read Bridgeman and Hampton though. Vilppu's more about general advices for freehand figure drawing (intermediate) so not the best for basic human part constructions.........

>>3107149
His anatomy is so watered down that its not even funny, you will pick up tons of bad habits instead of learning anything useful just learn the real thing you will have to sooner or later

>>3107087
He doesn't care about gesture and his anatomy book doesn't say anything about the skeleton.
I don't know which book you're talking about, but if this is not enough for you to disregard a teacher of figural drawing, I don't know what will.

>>3107528
That's because it's not an anatomy book, but a figure drawing book and it's the abstract concepts that are so precious and hard to find.
You can learn anatomy anywhere, if he put that inside that book, he'd be watering down the actual, important content.

>>3107149
Nothing wrong with him but he is so vague as fuck in his teaching unless you take a live class with him you miss out on so much crucial information. I'm also pretty sure 99% of the people here have never finished hampton nor vilppus content.

>>3107349

Well, it's not because Marko is great that Hogart is great too. It's shitty, if you're a beginner it's better to stay away from it.

>>3107087
Is that penguinz0?

>>3107098
There was this one anon who drew really cute anime girls and you could tell he studied Bridgman a lot