Did I get it right?
>>2308762
No. Not even close.
>>2308763
What's wrong then? I want a comprehensive tier list for people.
>>2308762
jazza should be the one on the bottom
>>2308762
The focus only on figure drawing is appalling.
>>2308814
Actually, Vilppu seems to produce by far the worst artists. I don't know why, Vilppu himself is excellent, but whenever I see people post their drawings here on /ic/ after studying Vilppu, they are horrendously bad.
I guess this whole feely, inside out, wrap around the form stuff is really not something beginners should focus on before having a proper understanding of perspective, proportions, structure and just clean drawing in general.
>>2308762
How can you even look at Hogarth's shit and not laugh? Holy fuck.
>>2308762
Please fuck off with the tier lists, this isn't /lit/. And it shouldn't become /lit/.
>>2308837
He explains anatomy, important points, and rhythm better than anyone else.
>>2308841
You must have a truly pleb understanding if you believe that, I thought he was ok once too, but could clearly see Bridgeman was far better.
>>2308859
if you're calling me a pleb you better be calling Marko Djurdjevic a pleb too, because he swears by the man. faggot.
swap hogarth with bridgeman and movie robertson to the top, nice to see mark in there he is way underated
Definitive?
>>2308880
This is more accurate but it's far from "definitive" considering it is missing a shit ton of very good and common resources
>Bridgman
lmoa
>>2308762
Who's that asian guy ?
>>2308900
thank you
>>2308893
>I can only construct stiff looking loomis heads
>>2308900
>List them for fuck sake
Well assuming we are just sticking to figure drawing and anatomy (even though Scott Robertson doesn't do that, and probably those random youtube guys I don't recognize don't either, neither does ctrl paint): Peck, Bammes, Vanderpoel, and Goldfinger come to mind. And it's silly to represent Hogarth with Dynamic Anatomy considering Dynamic Figure Drawing is a much better book. If you want to include video lectures then you get people like Rey Bustos on the list, I think Scott Eaton has some too but I may be mistaken. Hale's books I don't have but are considered drawing classics. I dunno, there's probably a lot more I'm forgetting. And this is just with anatomy and figure drawing, nevermind all other things in art.
>>2308924
>>2308880
I dont know who are these guys
>no Steve Huston
>>2308926
>Rey Bustos
I fucking love that guy. He only had one video on NMA when I joined now there's a bunch more, I guess I'm going to have to sign up again.
>>2308762
But alphonso fucking sucks
>>2308836
He's a really good teacher.
>>2308880
Who's the guy next to scott robinson
>>2308959
he's you're mom fagget
seriously though I don't know lmoa
>>2308959
this guy https://www.youtube.com/user/moatddtutorials
>>2308864
>Marko Djurdjevic
As far as big name concept artists go, he's pretty fucking pleb, technically ok, but so formulaic and boring, he's like Jim Lee.
Hogarth and Hampton have anatomy so fucking wrong man. They exagerate everything to help us understand, I would not recommand to study them unless you are like 13 like Marko, study hardcore for 2 years then use the next years to correct the hogarth errors, yeah that would be perfect. Otherwise just do a shiton of loomis then go to vilppu/bridgeman/pinterest when you really dnt understand with references. Scott Robertson should be in another category.. perspective vs anatomy wtf did you do there. The rest are irrevelant.
>>2309374
Thanks for telling me not to study good material Mr.Plebman posting on an Tuvan Throat Chanting IRC.
>>2309434
It's a valid concern though. I mean, I think they are fine to study as long as you use a more scientific book like Peck in conjunction. But a lot of people see the dangers of studying highly stylized anatomy. Look at Hogarth, his figures have every muscle contracted at once and then pillow shaded, while the bones are all bent and messed up. He doesn't even teach the skeletal structure in his book.
Apparently Bammes in his books (the German original ones, not sure about those new translated version) takes the time to essentially shit talk all the other anatomy teachers and books and points out all their weaknesses.
>>2309374
>Otherwise just do a shiton of loomis then go to vilppu
How to be shit at drawing in 3 easy steps.
>>2309461
>Apparently Bammes in his books (the German original ones, not sure about those new translated version) takes the time to essentially shit talk all the other anatomy teachers and books and points out all their weaknesses.
That's not what Bammes did at all, he just explains their methodology if I recall correctly. Bammes is pretty great though. He's more refined than Bridgman yet looser than Loomis; I think he represents a happy medium.
Here's an advice from a pro:
You autists need to get over your loomis snakeoil and start drawing. Do studies and life-drawings but stop reading loomis. He irreperably fucks up your brain with his autistic interpretation of "art".
If you need more than 2 years to get on loomis' level you're doing something wrong.
>>2309501
>an advice from a pro
>>2309355
lmao kid you wish you had 1/8th of his skill. If you think anyone of the top 1% of working professionals is a pleb, quit art.
>>2309594
No, it's widely accept that's average, Jason Manley just promoted the fuck out of him a decade ago, he's a dime a dozen concept artist.
