This ONE image contains all the necessary fundamentals for understanding form.
Prove me wrong.
>inb4 This ain't loomemes though
both hands have a combined total of 6 fingers
loomis teaches you how to unlock the secrets of the 5 fingered hand
>ANON STUDY YOUR FUNDAMENTALS
>don't know how
I should order a copy of Keys to Drawing. I think I have the same book that illustration is from, Burne Hogarth right?
hogarth a shit, all his figures look like martian balloon men with no bones doing abstract dance
>>2339999
quads a truth
>>2340008
true that, only shitty american 70s comic artists like him
>>2340008
Holy shit how have I not seen this before. This is actually pretty hilarious.
Burne Hogarth is fine, especially if you like JoJo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sblR0eIRW-I
>>2340008
>Abstract dance
He just wants to show you as much of the Prometheans' anatomy as possible
>>2339999
>>2340010
The constructions are short hand (pun intended). If you've lauded Bridgman at any time you can't fault him for that really. In Hundred Hands 3/4ths of Bridgman's plates consist of a skinflap with a vein running through it.
>>2339969
Looks like cartoon junk
Simple shapes, man. Containing. Volumes. Masses.
And Hogarth is pretty cool. You're not supposed to be copying his figures literally, but analyzing the forms for when you're drawing from life or imagination.
The key is to take a lil' Hogarth and mix it up with everybody you've learned from.
(tips fedora and leaves thread)
>>2339969
where's perspective? And the fuck is going on with the foreshortening? The left leg is fucked up mang
>>2339969
Is it possible for a foot to point in a different direction from the knee?
>>2340070
Turn your foot anon...
is it only me or does that back arm look broken
/ic/ never thought that hogarth was shit.
He is really good at explaining things, and his book is good. The problem is, his style, a lot of people find it unappealing, and if you learn from him, you are going to pick up on some habits and end up drawing like him. If you don't want to draw like hogarth, dont learn from hogarth, is basically what I mean. I hate the way he does his heads for example.
>>2339969
I never undertood how are you supposed to study something like this.
Do you copy it until you can draw it from memory? Copy it and then try to draw it from different angle? The instructions are always something like "study these drawings". Would it kill them to be one or two sentences more specific?
>>2340286
copying this doesn't teach you anything because the artist already did all the thinking. You don't learn math by copying solved equasions. You look at the equasion, memorize it and then you exercise by using it on unsolved problems.
Understand the simplified shapes they use to break down the complex anatomy and then try to do the same with your own figure studies from life, sculptures, masterpaintings or photos.
>>2340002
Yes, his work is amazing.
>>2340008
I don't see what's wrong with Hogarth's work. I think that, for in depth insane detailed anatomy study, he's great, not for beginners though.
>>2340286
It teaches you that you should learn basic 3D forms, like cube, ball, and cylinder, because you can construct everything with them, so you have easy to properly place them in space and render them with light. Don't be a human photocopier, be a human 3D modeling program.
>>2340310
kek that's not how you're supposed to learn math. You look at the equation, then prove it, thereby allowing you to understand how it came to be. Then you can do some problems to understand different ways you can use the equation. Memorization like masturbation, leads to an unfounded self-satisfaction.
You are right about how to study these diagrams though. Its about learning to see first.
>>2340357
Damn some of those overlays are embarrassingly inaccurate.
>>2340366
Still learning mate, redline me?
>>2340367
arms and legs are more cillinders than prisms
the prism surrounding the navel makes no sense because there's no bone that gives shape to that part, compared to your ribcage or hips
>>2340624
Nothing wrong with breaking the arms/legs into more planar blocks than cylinders. That's more a matter of taste, and when dealing with Michelangelo the blocky breakdown is often very appropriate.
But yeah the torso make no sense really, and the blocks elsewhere are all drawn with poor perspective.
>>2340357
What the fuck is this crap
>>2339969
How are you supposed to learn any shit that matters if you can't even see the dick? Everyone knows that the dick is the ultimate example of anatomical perfection. Which is why the ancient Greeks, who also invented the golden ratio, made sure that the "phallus" was the centerpiece of all of their most precious artworks, who in themselves are what we define as the origins of modern science.
>>2340257
I wouldn't draw heads from Hampton or Bridgman either
>>2340644
dicks in disney when?
>>2340027
AWAKEN MY MASTERS
>>2340357
>kek that's not how you're supposed to learn math. You look at the equation, then prove it, thereby allowing you to understand how it came to be. Then you can do some problems to understand different ways you can use the equation. Memorization like masturbation, leads to an unfounded self-satisfaction.
You cannot apply an equation you cannot recall.
combine Nicolaides and Vilppu and you're set anon.
>>2340699
>Nicolaides
Is his book shit or not? I keep hearing its a waste a time, and that contour drawing is shit.
>>2340699
nicolaides is shit, look up some of his paintings, blind contour drawing is the worst drawing exercise ever invented
OP here, still haven't seen an image to top Hogarth's. Lets get a single image that contains all the information a beginner needs, so we can post that instead of spamming loomis all the time.
I-it's just a sketch...
So who draws the best (most pedagogically useful) mannequins? I've been struggling with anatomy and want to put mannequinization over my guestures to help study the anatomical features of the figure.
>>2340720
you can't get all the fundamentals into one info-graphic at least not without it being fucking huge
>>2340705
>Is his book shit or not?
His book contains some useful advice, his exercise on the other hand is rather time consuming, but you could be selective with it.
>>2340708
>nicolaides is shit, look up some of his paintings
Yes, and? That doesnt really matter since what's important is the way how he articulated some important concepts of the fundamentals just like Stanchfield's Drawn to Life.
I dont see a reason to discredit someone that's already proven to be a great mentor. I'm pretty sure you're not the only one who said that since decades ago, but look, his method works for some people. Which direction are you aiming to be?
Dont be a close minded faggot.
>>2340777
I'm not closed minded, I read his book, tried the exercises and found it to be a load of tedious hippy bullshit.
>>2340773
How about just form then? I think most can agree its the biggest obstacle to drawing well.
Fitting all the fundamentals is probably impossible, but we can compartmentalize.
>>2340786
ok then, which book do you think is the most helpful?
>>2340766
>So who draws the best (most pedagogically useful) mannequins?
>>2340798
depends what you mean, nicoliades covers a few topics. probably the villpu manual or hampton for more structured stuff for form generally le mac's youtube videos and scott robertson, for gesture mike mattesai's stuff. villpu is a good all rounder though.
>>2340310
>literally the worst way to learn maths
Nice example senpai.
>>2340818
Are you dumb? He asks for simplified manequins, not photorgraphs..
>>2340786
Draw is Tedious. This is the real thing. Repeat again and again and again is tedious and the best way to learn. Draw is not your friend's party.
>>2340696
You rarely need to, most are given in exams and all are given for every other situation. Being good at math isn't about remembering arbitrary shit.
>>2341317
Do you have autism?
>>2341366
>Being good at math isn't about remembering arbitrary shit.
No one said that. Reading comprehension isn't your strong point I take it. Also, memorizing the way to solve a problem is not "arbitrary shit" you idiot.
>>2340008
That's actualy pretty great.
>>2340734
do you make comics ?
>>2341374
He seems to think you mean memorizing the location of operators and operands instead of understanding their relation
