REILLY > LOOMIS
>>2461779
I agree but it's very hard to find a step by step explanation of the reilly method. I have the Ron Lemen dvds and he explains it somewhat but less in depth than loomis does his method in his books. Reilly must've been an amazing teacher, too bad most of his teachings were lost to time.
>>2461820
Mastering drawing the human figure by Jack Fargasso
>>2461827
that book has pretty bad drawings for how good the method is though, check out watts atelier he uses loomis method and combines it with the riley method.
I think whatever method this is is quite good
>>2461852
That's reilly (but that end result is pretty bad looking imo)
>>2461856
why
>>2461864
they're not bad perse but they look like they were made by a student instead of a teacher, just look at the lines in the construction.
>>2461864
End result looks shit
just look at it.
>>2461900
looks fine for a quick figure drawing. I'm the only one posting reilly method pics but if you have better examples by all means
>>2461820
Nathan Fowkes uses the Reilly method. Unfortunately no one ever bothered to rip his charcoal portrait drawing classes.
>>2461779
Yes. I think so too.
>>2461820
Erik Gist
Ron Lemen
Danny Galieote
Nathan Fowkes
http://funkymonkey1945.deviantart.com/gallery/
Charles Hu
Watts is main modern successor of Reilly method as I understand. He said their abstractions are more advanced right now and you can see it here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKfsZaNrmzM
>>2461836
Meh, most of them are sketches. The finished drawings that are there look pretty good. And the main thing is that it shows the method, which is what you wanted. The dude studied under Reilly.
>>2461991
Forgot to mention Ryan Woodward. Anyone else?
>>2461998
Ryand Woodward has an awesome book on gestures. I posted it in the books thread so check it out.
>>2461991
Remember another thing. John Asaro and Fred Fixler studied with Reilly.
>>2461945
I just figured out why I got suggested loomis, now I understand... I knew the construction looked familiar, but that first panel looks like loomis' instructions, and now I see that it's just anime.
>>2462144
Wat
>>2462144
the fuck did I just read
>>2462144
I understood this post. It's still a retarded post though.
>>2462252
please translate
>>2462260
He means Loomis loved anime.
>>2461991
>Charles Hu
I downloaded his figure drawing videos, and he doesn't use the Reilly method.
>>2461779
>REILLY
>>2461991
Watts is not the main successor. Faragasso is. He was actually taught by Reilly and later taught at Reilly's School and at the league. Watts never even went to the Art student league--the school that the Reilly method came out of.
The Reilly method is not difficult nor is it esoteric. It basically deals with good old fashion elements of art and design in a cohesive manner. It has emphasis on rhythm and relationship.
The Reilly method only seems elusive to those who put thier fingers in thier ears when they start to hear things like expressive power or harmonic principles. They forget that the Reilly method was intended to apply fine art concepts to the illustration practice.
Can someone run down the difference between the two? What does Reilly do that Loomemes doesn't? And vice versa
>>2462560
The biggest difference is Reilly's teaching ultimately lead up to painting. Loomis only aludes to it.
In the drawing department the difference is how they go about things. Reilly was about abstracting things down to thier essence, the six line figure is a prime example. Reilly stressed the importance of having an artist's eye when establishing relationships.
Loomis is about tacking things on. Loomis was about sticking to a construction routine. He stresses a straightfoward representation.
TL;DR
Reilly was about the art
Loomis was about the routine.
>>2462554
Watts said Glen Orbik was his mentor as I remember. He talk about this "In the Studio" video
>>2462603
Orbik was taught by Fixler. And Fixler was taught by Reilly and later Hale. Both Orbik and Fixler are dead. Faragasso is probably the only living student of Reilly's today.
While we're on the subject can I get some reccommendations for books that aren't out of print that I can find? I know loomis and other resources are online but I learn better from a physical copy of a book than reading something on a screen. I retain the info better.
Thanks. My school has a HUGE amount of drawing books on the fundamentals which I desperately need to brush up on but I have no idea what author to trust, what books will be good to learn from, etc.
I'll also take suggetions for anything i can buy off amazon so don't worry about reccommending something my school will have.
Thanks guys, didn't wanna make another thread to ask this, figured this was on-topic enough.
>>2462792
Loomis, Vilppu, Scott Robertson, Bridgeman, Bert Dodson.
>>2462795
Isn't loomis out of print?
>>2462805
No, his books are practically always in print.
>>2462805
His books were recently put back into print by Titan Books.
>>2461852
this is horrific lel
What exactly is the Reilly method? All I'm seeing are faces with visible plane lines.
>>2462934
It's a method of simplifying the face and body into a series of intuitive rhythms.
Mark Westermoe.........
>>2462932
The reprints are super high quality ya doofus.
As someone new to art. Whose books should I go with, to get the process down, and with out getting bad habits? I am on a budget though. Links to recommended books would be appreciated.
>>2463612
Draw from photos and then draw from life and then draw from your imagination. You don't necessarily need any books, just draw.
>>2462144
SORRY
I was falling asleep because reasons, and I was pretty incoherent, but for whatever reason felt like saying what I did at that particular moment. This had better make sense when I wake up.
Also, yeah, Loomis loved anime.
>>2463631
You still don't make sense retard.
Anyone recommend any specific books using this method? I'm understanding the human head a lot better, and can feel my art moving forward quickly.
I already have Loomis, and Brigdman but if I had a book on Reilly, I'd really move on up to where I need to be.
>>2461993
presentation matters not just method, look at these head drawings and tell me they look like a professional drew them lol.
>>2463612
What >>2463626 said. Do what works for you. People throw loomis around because his books connects personally to a lot of people starting out. But theres plenty of artists out there that never went down the hard study route, and instead just surrounded themselves with their own observations. A good example of this is sinixdesign. Here's a video of his on heads:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDG9TUHD1Cw
Can the reilly method be abstracted and applied to other things? Is there an approach to "designing" a "reilly method" for other creatures? And not just mammals, I'm thinking insects, birds, and perhaps trees even.
>>2464025
why don't you test it and come up with it
>>2464037
but I suck anon
>>2464045
Then stop wasting time here. Go draw some faces. You can find your own answers as you go.
>>2462554
Faragasso's quick sketch look like garbage compared to Jeffs though learn from people who are actually good.
>>2464000
omfg triggered
>buy a couple dozen conte 1710 Bs
>half of them crumble as I sharpen them and are completely useless
Used 5 so far. 2 could not be sharpened at all, and 2 worked flawlessly, 1 worked perfectly until I got halfway down and then it started to crumble as well.
What the fuck.
>>2464771
Traditional memedia is a bitch
>>2464771
Literally just grabbed a fresh one to sharpen and it's crumbling to shit as well. I want my money back. Anyone have a similar experience and was able to return or have them replaced by dicklick?
>>2461827
Good painter, but I hated being in class with him.
>>2464785
The two that I was actually able to sharpen and use were fantastic pencils. I could sharpen them to a long taper and put tons of weight on them without having them break. But then you have ones where the wood is so fucking hard you can't shave away at it and the charcoal just breaks into pieces.
Are generals any better?
>>2462599
>TL;DR
>Reilly was about the art
>Loomis was about the routine.
I'm getting the feeling this thread is for people who think Loomis is too "mainstream" and are circlejerking over a obscure and convoluted method of drawing the head.
>>2464792
I've never tried Generals, the Contés are my favorites despite the poor quality control. Wolff's Carbon are pretty good as well but they're a lot less expressive, anything under 4B is way too hard.
>>2464771
Never had that issue with the contes maybe you got a shitty batch senpai. Get a refund or exchange bro.
>>2464771
I use General's because they're cheaper, and they're carbon sketch pencil, even though I've had some problems with it crumbling while sharpening, puts down really rich darks.
>>2461820
>hard to find a step by step explanation
1. copy the drawings
2. repeat step 1
Also,
>what do the lines mean
The lines emphasize that the shape is in perspective. If you were to just draw an outline of a head, you wouldn't necessarily know it was drawn in proper perspective. While the rule isn't just "more lines = looks more in perspective", there is a certain amount that is optimal, not enough and the form is ambiguous, too many and the form is equally obscured. It all depends on the complexity of the form. Generally the guidelines show midpoints and significant, albeit either truncated or abbreviated planar transitions where continuous curves are broken down into semi-curved planes with defined edges.
The general purpose of the method is to show similarities between forms. By subdividing consistently, you'll have an easier time seeing the basic shapes that make up more complex forms.
Did Reilly or anyone like him develop an analogue technique for the human body?
A planar demarcation of ageneric, trim, young human body? I imagine there'd be two versions by gender...
Also, didn't Watts claim he advanced Reilly's technique and gave it a joint name? What do you think about that?
>>2466777
>Did Reilly or anyone like him develop an analogue technique for the human body?
Yes, there are lay in methods for the body.
If you do any classes at Watts (even online) he goes over a more "classical Reilly" lay in, a Loomis type of skeleton lay in, a constructive lay in etc.
And Watts encourages you to develop your own lay in method.
>>2466777
I think this is what it looks like
>>2466777
>What do you think about that?
Yes his abstractions are advanced now
>>2466905
>those heads
JUST
>>2467043
Watts is literally better than all of ic don't even
>>2466804
yeah I've done both reilly lay ins and constructive watts himself basically tells you to use what is right for the pose.
I find the reilly method is great for getting proportions and general methods, but you need some construction and idea for volume. Basically I use the abstractions as advance gesture.
>>2467043
WE WUZ ABSTRACTIONS N SHIIIEEET
That's clearly the skull of a nubian queen,
Just signed up for the Mark Westermoe class, starts next week. I can report in if anyone is interested.
>>2464794
it's generally to study the facial planes - usually you probably wouldn't be going very specific with the facial planes (because you've studied) and sort of eyeball it at that point
>>2461852
Now that's a punchable face if I ever saw one
>>2466804
>Yes, there are lay in methods for the body.
What are the best books teaching that?
>>2464787
Why?
>>2467336
Record it and upload it for us.
>>2462144
>>2464801
>circlejerking over a obscure and convoluted method of drawing the head.
But it isn't obscure. It isn't uncommon for traditional art classes to have students draw a head bust that has many angles to exaggerate the planes of the head to get an idea of where light will hit on the head while it is coming down on it. Not only that it isn't uncommon to have the body have contour lines going through them to show volume of the body (in this case the head and the features of the face) while still having having the utility of the angular plane bust.
Is it something that people may use all the time? No, but it is used to teach the student the contours of the face and how you can expect a light source to be displayed on it.
>>2464000
trips of truth
>>2464801
>circlejerking over a obscure and convoluted method of drawing the head.
The reilly method is more of a teaching aid than a construction method.
It helps keep the relationships of multiple body parts in mind. This way you don't focus on any single one without comparing its location with adjacent body parts/landmarks.
What's the best way to learn the reilly method? Any books or a bunch of shit online?
>>2468824
Learn the anatomy of the head
>>2469009
How does someone learn that?
>>2469017
Via the Reilly method.
>>2469017
Anatomy books, there is some great videos of anatomy and Reilly method on nma, I consider the site a must for any beginners who take their art seriously and is extremely inexpensive for the education you receive.
>>2469039
What is nma?
bl0x
>>2469046
Newmastersacademy
>>2469050
Which course and teacher in particular?
>>2470206
do you have someone at home wipe your ass when you're done shitting
>>2470284
You're an idiot.
>>2470284
autismo
>>2470284
It's more of a problem with how the method is (mis-)presented.
>>2466905
Glad I didn't pay for this shit
>>2470857
Too complex for you?
