in what order should the loomis books be studied?
Save your time and just read figure drawing
>>2365994
Loomis is a meme.
>>2366256
>implying Loomis is a Meme isn't the real meme
Memes aside, you'll occasionally want to hop through them at the same time, though that part comes after you've been able to handle the solid core of the beginning ones. I would point you towards:
>Fun With A Pencil
>Figure Drawing For All It's Worth
>Drawing The Head And Hands
>Successful Drawing (really just focuses on what the top three cover and goes into more detail on some of the more compository aspects of drawing)
>Creative Illustration (follows a similar vein, this time being even more technical and getting into concepts of tone and such, advances what you already know)
>Eye of The Painter (is rather assumingly most focused upon the ability to put all these things together and examines the creation of art for all its facets)
You'll probably spend most of your time hopping back and forth between the first three books, finding that many of the pages in later books seem to assume a level of proficiency gained in the earlier ones. There are some discrepancies in this, however, so don't be afraid to give some of their early exercises a try if you feel up to it. Just work at your own pace, and your own path.
May the Force be with you, always.
I find Loomis' prose so cloying and rambling, it's more dated with how it reads than much older drawing manuals like Harold Speed and Vanderpoel.
>>2366353
Yeah, it's really off-putting. I abandoned him and "Drawing on the Right Side..." because I just couldn't stand reading this shit.
On the other hand, when I picked "Keys to Drawing" I immediately saw no bullshit - "look at your desk, pick a thing, draw".
>fun with a pencil
P-pls no
>>2366355
That's why I say Loomis is a meme. His books are 80% esoteric bullshit, 20% stylized drawing structions for a publishing industry that no longer exists.
Dodson and Hamm are much better for the absolute begginer because they avoid all the bullshit and just make you draw which is what you really need when you're starting, no small talk or mumbo jumbo.
Bridgman and Vilppu are also infinitely more useful for the advanced artist since they actually teach/rethread useful information not contained in the more amateur books, not just the same thing over and over.
But /ic/ won't drop the Loomis dogma like Tumblr won't drop red noses and social justice madness.
>>2366380
Why are Bridgman's drawings so tumor-y, like building a body out of rocks?
>>2366389
His drawings are stylized for the swift location of landmarks and muscle groups.
And people kinda looked like that back in the day. Nowadays with dieting and steroids athletes look more streamlined but when all you had were real work-made muscles, people were bumpy as fuck.
>>2366264
This guy knows what's up
>>2366380
>tfw not advanced artist but like bridgman because he has a similar aesthetic to my strokes
what do
>>2365994
>falling for the loomis meme
you are hopeless
>>2368235
Wait, so, Loomis isn't helpful?
Why's it on the sticky, then? I am confused.
>>2368385
He is just a frustrated, bitter and buttravaged Anon is all don't listen to him.
I decided to stop sucking complete shit and actually be at least somewhat not shit, so I got Loomis Head and Hands or whatever it's called
Should I have gotten Fun with Pencil first? My friend told me that it's for complete beginners and is generally an overrated shit book and that with whatever current skill level I have I will not learn much from it
>>2367983
Just do bridgman but keep anatomy for artists open next to it and check everything you might be confused about.
>>2366380
>Dodson and Hamm
got their pdf's?
>>2368412
well it depends. I learnt quite a lot from it.
>>2368385
Loomis is one of the best artists to study from. Study and get off this shitty board.
>>2368412
Make your own judgement, it's a solid book.
>>2366380
Stop trying to force your gay meme.
Hamm doesn't show you how to draw a head in 3/4 or even talk about what construction is you autistic retard, his entire book is basically a bunch of deviantart tutorials crammed together. Bridgman's drawings are barely legible 85% of the time or more. Loomis' books are the most well rounded of any of the early 20th century art instructors, period. He teaches construction, proportion, anatomy, composition, perspective etc. Hardly any of the other people in this image I'm posting teach more than one of these things effectively and if you weren't just talking out of your ass about having read any of them at all instead of trying to force an epic meme you'd know that.
>>2368488
Yeah. Finish the book then see if FwP if for you.
>>2368496
Also, after I finish up with Loomis who should I move on to? I've heard a lot of people shitpost about Hamm and Bridgman both irl and on here, should I go with Hampton?
>>2368488
its not necessary to finish the book at all desu. as long as you follow the diagrams and shit then you'll know when you have what you need.
>>2368385
Loomis isn't good, people here got trolled and turned it into dogma.
He wastes too much time on prose and is way too influenced by the workflow of a publishing industry that doesn't exist anymore. There is a reason his books aren't in print anymore and it's not because the jews want to keep the secret of drawing from the masses.
Study Dodson and Bridgman/Vilppu. And most importantly: DRAW FROM LIFE.
>>2368489
If Loomis is so good why is /ic/ so bad?
Checkmate atheists.
>>2365994
guys
loomis just died check his fb. RIP
>>2368589
Because just like you, they don't study Loomis.
>>2365994
Hampton and Vilppu are better desu. Loomis is a meme.
>>2368489
i tried to read fun with a pencil and it gave me aids. fucking blooks balls was he high when he wrote that book? the prose is narration of an imaginary gnome that is hypothetically sitting on your shoulder.
as far as gesture and anatomy, there are ten thousand youtube videos explaining gesture and shading, and real anatomy books exist. bridgeman's book is like a drawing manga paper back compared to pic related.
drawing the head & figure is just the same "copy what's on the page" style, but it's like half the size of loomis's books with the same information.
>>2368597
serves him right. he single handedly screwed up an entire generation of artist with his half assed pinterest tier tutorials. now that he is gone his memory will fade away and only then will this board be more than just a bunch of mongoloids parroting outdated methods.
>>2368850
Keep in mind that Fun With A Pencil was written way back.
And people didn´t look too highly on drawing back then, I think, so what better way to grab the attention of someone by making a book fun?
>>2368850
>drawing the head and figure
>the same information
For the last fucking time Hamm doesn't teach you how to draw heads in 3/4, he doesn't teach you construction or perspective. Outside of a few tricks and a single proportions diagram his book is practically worthless.
>>2368885
i didn't say it did. don't sperg out because you prepared the wrong argument in your head and couldn't wait to post it.
>>2368919
>drawing the head & figure is just the same "copy what's on the page" style, but it's like half the size of loomis's books with the same information.
>i didn't say it did
>>2368850
hey fuck you. bridgmann is a solid source for getting planes down. the idea that you could talk shit with an anatomy reference book is asinine.
>how to assemble a car
>lol just use a car manual
>>2368942
>how to assemble a car
>lol just use a car manual
a car isn't exactly something someone can make from scratch in a couple hours like a drawing is. constructive anatomy is more accessible, but classic human anatomy is more accurate and general
>>2368850
I have this book and I love it
