has anyone actually improved from studying loomis/richer/hogarth/proko/any

maybe you aren't effectively learning and practicing.

>>3118218
post "then/now" artwork

>>3118218
Post work and we can help you improve.

what are you saying?...your drawing looks so good one might mistake it for a photo. All hail loomis.

>>3118218
during my git gud phase, i learned most from just copying books cover to cover, photos, and life drawing. Switching mediums to sculpting/3D applying knowledge then switching back to 2D very powerful and rounded out my skills. Tutorials were more like entertainment and motivation, most are pretty bad at teaching and the career advice is either biased or dated.

>>3118224
Is this a new meme or something?

File: faceimprovement.png (206KB, 700x375px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 700x375px

>>3118218
Here's what I have digitally
My sketchbooks show a lot more info

>>3118243
You've obviously improved, well done

>>3118243
looks all unfinished. Deep dive baby to learn how long you can hold your breath

>>3118225
post your artwork

>>3118243
lmao im OP. this aint me

i posted my shit a few weeks ago. im just wondering if anyone here has actually seen improvement from just reading loomis/bridgman etc and drawing the diagrams in them.

i can draw decent from reference but my imagination drawing sucks major cock hole

>>3118248
Thanks

>>3118254
The second one is a wip, though I appreciate your encouragement

>>3118260
oops sorry, I didn't mean to impersonate you.
I was just answering your question.

>>3118268
oh, its cool. how do you study primarily? like do you do mostly gesture, anatomy book study shit, etc.?

>>3118218
What is that thing she's wearing between her bra and her panties?

File: tumblr_n57g4wSi4X1spmszio1_1280 (1).jpg (52KB, 616x378px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 616x378px

>>3118260
how much were you drawing from imagination? Did you finish stuff?

>>3118272
Girdle

>>3118272
>what's a garter belt?

>>3118275
you mean garter

>>3118260
Keep drawing from reference. Don't draw from imagionation that won't help you. Keep going mang!

>>3118288
bait

>>31183038
Can anyone verify that this is bait?

>>3118218
>any fucking art information at all?

Yes, I went 3 quarters up in Scott Robertson's book and improved in a short period of time. I started drawing 8 months ago.

>>3118307
Draw shit from your imagination, and inform that by reference material + research. People who say all you should do is copy are fucking idiots who enjoy being miserable drooling copyzombies. Don't curb your creativity. Rather fan the creative flames with references and study material.

Who will draw a better original rabbit? One who drew 10 copies, or the one that did 4 studies and 6 creative drawings from imagination (informed by reference material)?

File: 885A6794-4E5D-4E88-9291-B5A05C819B9F-4339-000001BF891B148F.jpg (79KB, 600x1149px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 600x1149px

What are some good online sites for figure drawing?

>tfw no one can post work proving loomis actually works

>>3118336
Is there more poses from this picture?

>>3118218

People like Jeff Watts, Erik Gist, Patrick J Jones, Boris Vallejo, and many similar artists will all recommend that you study artists like Loomis, Bridgman, Hogarth, Reilly, and the rest of the crew. Look at Glen Orbik's work too and you can see their influence. A lot of amazing work that was done in the comic industry is riddled with the influence of these guys.

Two years is not a long time to be studying art, and depending on how you studied during that period your results may vary compared to someone else. It's not enough to just give the material a quick look-through and forget about it, you need to attempt to reach the same level of understanding that the author has. You need to copy their work, analyze it, read what they say until it's burned into your brain, and then try to apply their methods to your own studies.

The shit that gets thrown around here, that you're going to be a professional in two years, is bunk. It's a fantasy that gets perpetuated by people who don't know any better. You'll be lucky if your work looks professional in 5 years, if not 10. Some people get lucky with some sort of gimmick or style, but it's just luck.

Two years in I was still wrapping my head around how to learn and just starting to get a good grasp of what the fundamentals were, and just finally getting over being hobbled by basic drawing skills. This shit takes time, and the only way to really do it fast is to do what every great artist has done and seriously dedicate your life to it. Practice daily, consistently, and be present. If you've got your head in the clouds when you're studying it's not going to stick. You need to keep up with your brain's desire to throw out everything that doesn't involve instant gratification.

File: just draw whatever.png (27KB, 797x482px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 797x482px

>>3118218
Anon, you fell for the art meme.
Notice how the pros don't know anything about Loomis or any of those kind of people.

File: 1428442545249.jpg (148KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 720x960px

>>3118476
>tfw only been drawing for 3 years
>currently work in the industry with the pros
>didn't waste time with looms, Bridgman, or anything like that

No, you're just going about it wrong.
Stop wasting time on studying, thinking it'll "make you better", and just draw what you love. Look up refs of your character artists, try to see what they did, and go about it from there.

>>3118478

There are centuries of great artists who didn't have Loomis, etc. to study from, but that doesn't invalidate them as resources.

There are a lot of pros who do know who they are, it just depends where you're looking. Yeah, some guy who came up as a digital painter in the 00's probably won't know who Loomis is because of the state of the art community at large. We're currently in a revival period of traditional instruction where a lot of these older influences are resurfacing as we rediscover their value. There's a good reason a lot of these books are just now coming back into print.

Yes, someone could learn to paint successfully without ever seeing Loomis or the like, but they'd be even better or would have saved time at least if they had studied from it.

Chances are if they went to a good art school too, they might not have known who these people were, but were taught in part by someone with a direct lineage to their teaching, especially Reilly. You can't just take one guy saying 'yeah I didn't read Loomis' and come to the conclusion that there isn't any value in studying it.

>>3118478
>pros
>posting memetyr

>>3118480

That's good for you but every successful artist I've studied from and talked to adamantly disagrees with you.

>>3118496
Post their work

>>3118480
post work big boy

I don't know who to believe anymore, studying anatomy and perspective at least makes sense but this loomis ball shit? Not to me at least. Which is it /ic/, do I just draw or do I waste time studying and watching tutorials without finishing anything

File: tehmehb0ss.jpg (2MB, 2305x3057px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2305x3057px

>>3118496
>Making shit up

Yea, but you're wrong.

>>3118514

What do you mean Loomis ball shit? If you mean 'Fun with a Pencil', skip it and work through Drawing the Head and Hands/Figure Drawing for all it's Worth.

The entire point of the ball though is to teach you to think of working with form on a 2D plane, it's the entire basis for construction and perspective.

Studying isn't a waste of time, and the fact that people are propagating that idea here these days is fucking disgusting.

>>3118519

>I would rather listen to "tehmeh" than actual artists like Jeff Watts who have worked professionally for decades

>>3118529
Jeff Watts is trying to put people on to that mastery is a lifelong endeavor. Most of /ic/ just wants their foot in the door, seriously you don't need much to get your foot in the door...

You guys mostly just choose the absolute fucking most hardmode autistic way of getting into the creative industries "be so good they can't ignore me". Meanwhile shitty people are applying for jobs everyday and taking internships blowing past you, by the time you get your foot in the door that person, still with less skill (but more hours on the job) is managing you at an entry level position you're technically overqualified for, THIS HAPPENS.

c o p y f r o g s BTFO

File: P51D for adv.jpg (169KB, 1458x972px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 1458x972px

>>3118519
>>3118544

I feel conflicted about this info, I started drawing like 8 months ago and I have seen great improvement only when I was grinding fundamentals and then drawing a lot on top of it.

My work is nothing impressive, and it definitely lacks a lot of other fundamentals since I have focused mostly on perspective but I made a decent jump just by learning Scott Robertson/Vandruff. I honestly feel like if I continued and focused on rendering/composition/design I could improve even more quickly. After this, I believe anatomy would become very easy to study, since It would be literally like drawing any other assortment of shapes in perspective?

>>3118336
quickposes
pixelovely
croquis cafe
characterdesign

>>3118561
Grinding fundamentals is okay. In fact, some may require you to do it for at least 6 months straight. After that, studies should never be priority.

You need to draw what you want to draw from memory, and use what you've obtain from your studies to make those drawings better. That's the quickest way to improve, and by always improving your favorite art, you will become pro in about 3 years.

File: 5f888490942f70c7c101351cf68452d5--how-to-draw-skulls-drawing-tips.jpg (36KB, 501x425px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 501x425px

>>3118270
I followed loomis's advice on drawing heads. I would use the simple forms at first (the skull plate helped me tons), then move on to more complex planes once I could understand it well enough.
While I was in class or whatever, I would doodle the simplified head or facial features. I also sketched people on the bus, which helped with getting a better sense of proportions.

Basically though, my process is drawing a shit ton from imagination, just exploring what I do and don't know. If I'm having trouble with something, like an extreme angle, I will try to redraw it and figure it out myself until it looks right.
If I can't figure it out, I will study references for a little bit.

>>3118260
Well there are many pages in loomis that tell you to do what you just learned in the previous chapter with some of your own examples.

Like after the manikin frame is introduced there is a page like "Try some on your own" with a bunch of examples that loomis did, most people just copy the examples or even worse flip through that page and draw nothing.

Then it teaches you muscles and where to build them on top the manikin and tells you to draw some on your own. It is a well thought out book and surely people have improved by following through with it. Though I personally don't have the attention span to do that and just end up stopping after 1 or 2 poses.

>>3118478
>pros
>girl who only draws portraits

>>3118595

I agree with you, I think now that I have internalized perspective a little bit I see much better progress when I stare and analyze something for 10 minutes, then recreate it in my mind and try to draw it, than if I merely tried to construct it by looking and drawing.


Some Anon recommended this early and it's pretty amazing imo, analyzing is truly the best way to learn.

File: 354deaa3770912621bb816da070346ab--the-frog-united-states.jpg (12KB, 258x245px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 258x245px

>>3118478
>vetyr

>>3118602
>>3118610
post your work

>>3118608
That's ideal.
Notice how a lot of success artists have waifus and shit. It's cause they are so obsess in creating that character and creating their world, they tend to look up methods on IMPROVING their drawings, not a "How To Draw" ordeal.

A good mindset goes like this:
>Man, I'm drawing really shitty landscapes. I keep trying over and over, but it looks off. Let me see how my favorite artists does it. Hmmm, I don't quiet understand just yet. I know, let me look up Scott Robertson's How to Draw to get a better idea on perspective, and apply those techniques onto my landscape work

Versus

>I want to learn perspective. But before I even attempt it on my own, let me read 500 books on the subject. I'll be pro in no time :D

Let's just say, the bottom route will make you Really good at drawing boxes, but that's it.

>>3118629

I also doubt anyone could read 500 hours of perspective without trying to apply it, before losing all hope and becoming depressed, to be honest. Reading without drawing seems like the easiest path into desperation.

Maybe that's why /ic/ is always so gloomy about progress...?

>>3118629
>>3118634

When people tell you to study Loomis and whatnot, they don't mean 'read the book and don't draw anything'. They mean do what the book tells you and apply it's information to your own work. It should be pretty obvious that people are telling you to study it by drawing, and not like it's an English textbook.

>>3118645

I know, that's always the way I have done it and assume people talk about it when they recommend it. I actually think Loomis is a great source of knowledge, I just think that perhaps some people here do more reading than applying concepts and giving themselves projects to really drill down the knowledge acquired. It would explain the low mood this board tends to show.

>>3118645
how many times should i draw each diagram etc. in the books before i can expect myself to know it and improve my imagination drawings?

>>3118629
this so hard, i'm edging

>>3118650

Do you actually understand what the diagram says?

>>3118653
i feel like i have decent understandings of what im looking at generally, yeah.

>>3118629
This is also why kids hate school, and some hate uni. They're don't have something that motivates their learning...a project in the backs of their minds.

"Do your homework!" is the "loomis" of our childhood

>>3118218
You only improve by studying your favorite artists and using reference; Two things no /ic/ artist does.
Once you start doing that, you leave /ic/ in the hopes of making it big on tumblr > freelance > studio job.

>>3118673
everyone here is either on the linear perspective/anatomy meme (which works but you end up never drawing anything else besides anatomy based character designs) or imagination fagging.(which eventually only wastes time)

>>3118673
you don't only study artists that inspire you. You study anything that inspires you.

>>3118243
You'll never get better if you only work on studies. You need to make finished pieces. I don't fucking care if you suck at that. I don't care if everything you make is ugly. What matters is that you are making SOMETHING. Imagine if I tried to improve at cooking but all I was doing was improving how quickly I could crack open an egg. That's you right now.

>>3118275
Garterbelt, friend. A girdle is basically the oldschool word for Spanx.

>>3118220
Or maybe he's NGMI...

>>3118478
The studious virgin
The inspired chad

THE CLUES WERE THERE ALL ALONG

>>3118478
"just draw" is the "just b urself" of /ic/

>>3118561
Don't listen to these retards keep doing what you're doing and you will actually become good at art and will be still doing this in 20 years time, meanwhile idiots who say "hurr durr don't need fundamentals, get foot in the door ^^" will be forgotten forever as incompetent hacks.

>>3118561
>>3119065
And what other anons sed apply what you learned, thats the only way the brain remebers things by reinforcing information you learned, why do you think FZD students get tons of homework, theory wont do much without practice.

>>3118678
imagination fagging? What is that and how do I avoid it?

>>3118476
>you're lucky if you'll be pro level in 10 years

If you do anything for a decade and still aren't seriously good the you practiced wrong or didn't work as hard as you should have. Nothing takes 10 years to get really good at

>>3118544
Nailed it

not everyone needs to be fucking da Vinci just to try pro-level work. In fact most won't ever be top-tier artists even drawing for 50 years+ few(if any) here will reach that level.

if you're "good enough" you should absolutely strive to improve. but you literally just need to be good enough to create what you want. do you think Seth Macfarlane is some amazing life artist who renders perfectly in charcoal? he's easily accomplished his dreams and I'd wager he's not that good of an artist.

>>3118561
I'm not saying don't study, but if work from imagination/design is your end game you need to be doing those as well, informed by life/study.

This whole ARC shit is almost unrelated to professional careers that's "technical mastery is a lifelong process" and it is, but it doesn't mean you can't get paid along the way. It really ends up being a form of procrastination if your portfolio is "never ready/perfect"

Also with digital you can get pretty creative with studies, you could just turn this 3/4 study into a fantasy/scifi plane, continue iterating on it, then do orthographic views, do a pilot that started as a study, informed by reference. Now you have 2+ pages of material to use in your portfolio and it was actually fun and relevant to what you want to do.

Source, i get paid to work on manchild shit on franchises/brands people like.

>>3119288
>This whole ARC shit
what does ARC stand for?

Also what do you do like art for kid's cartoons or smthing?

>>3119288
Thank you Anon, that's really an awesome idea I never thought about doing. I should be doing projects now, that mix the fundies with visual research.