so... i was just watching glen vilppu on new masters academy on his how to draw heads video he said he disagrees with how loomis draws heads. he followed it by saying go for the real thing.if you wanna see it watch the how to draw heads chapter 3 and then skip to 3:03. what does ic think of this with all the loomis memeing going on .
a side not i love both artists
>>2547859
So how does he disagree? Not everyone here has access to that video
hold on lemme watch it...
>>2547865
sec i will transcribe what he said , he was talking about how to build the planes of the head and said, "now this is similar to a lot of the conventions you see about how to take and break down the head. i .. i totally dissagree with a lot of the uh, standard conventions like using a circle for the side of the head *eh* andrew loomis stuff. *pausees* go for the real thing.
>>2547870
Okay so in the few mins I watched it it seems he was going over the skull and the part where he said go for the real thing he is refering to what's actually there and not 'made up' conventions that loomis talks about like a clean cut circle for the side of the head. Maybe sit your ass down and watch the video and not make a shitty thread so you can stay focused?
As for loomis being a meme he just agrees to disagree. He and the other instructors refer to loomis time and again.
>>2547859
He just means to use the actual forms of the skull, which are more complex than the sliced ball.
Tbh he's right, but loomis isn't wrong. Loomis is a lot simpler and beginner oridnted.
>>2547859
loomis is the gateway to figure drawing because he makes the skill curve look easy
if you're still on loomis in your 3rd or 4th month you're probably not on the right track
>>2547958
If you could draw half as good as Loomis and had even a fraction of his understanding of anatomy, form and perspective, you would already be an established industry professional. One of the main signs of someone who is probably not going to make it is that they constantly switch to other teachers and lessons, thinking one of them will give them the secret advice that's going to make them good.
Loomis teaches the fundamentals, If you think you can just get those done in 3 to 4 months and then never come back to it, you probably haven't learnt shit in the first place.
>>2547929
Sadly the 'beginner friendly' route isn't always the best for everyone. I consider myself to be fairly intelligent, but when concepts are 'dumbed down' I tend to end up confused.
Watching and reading Vilppu managed to help me break a barrier that I had been struggling with for months regarding anatomy and structure that the more 'beginner friendly' books and videos kept making more and more confusing for me.
Vilppu I find to be really great for beginners that much prefer knowing the full picture. Rather than the traditional "draw a circle, add some eyes, etc" approach. He focuses on how you look at something, and then tells you to draw what you see, not what you're being told you see. I like that.
>>2548330
*tips fedora*
>>2548345
I don't see how what I said had anything to do with neckbeards or paints the image of one.
People learn from different methods, find whatever works best for you.
Dismissing that other ways can work is far more *tilts le maym hat towards your direction* than what I had said. Since they don't believe anything can work against how they think.
:^)
>>2548330
I know what you mean. I had to skip Loomis because it was just so dumbed down. Taboo to say around here of course.
Practice is the only true teacher.
>>2548454
I've learned from both loomis, villpu,hogarth ect;
I don't understand how loomis is "dumbed down". Could you explain by what you mean by that?
>>2548477
I didn't compare him to any of those others. Dumbed down means that he wastes a lot of time on stuff that was already obvious for someone like me who had never taken a drawing class.
>>2547859
Loomis method is...very technical. People recognize it and some outright said "It's shit" and like Watts they teach "Reilly method" that is all about finding rhythms of the face.
Here, grab a video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RmHOvmPJjE
>>2548481
You're a funny guy.
>>2548514
People aren't the same. Some have a lot better natural understanding about drawing than others. Just like people aren't equally smart. It's not so odd that you could run into someone like that on a global anonymous art message board.
>>2548516
Why don't you just buy some more neuroplasticity then?
>>2548517
I see you are impervious to basic logic. Well, good luck with your art or whatever it is you are here for.
>>2548481
seems like a case of Dunning–Kruger to me, if you wanna post some of your art and show us your actually beyond loomis teachings go ahead.
>>2548580
>pos ur ard
>>2548388
>I consider myself to be fairly intelligent
That is typical "le athiesm" behaviour.
>>2548593
Atheism being an intelligent choice does give a benefit of a doubt but just because you make a smart choice it doesn't mean that you are smart.
>>2548591
>someone makes a bold claim regarding their abilities
>'prove it'
>HURR LOGICAL FALLACY
You're a fucking retard
>>2548591
how is it a logical fallacy to ask to see your art?
>>2548591
Your an idiot, I'm simply asking for evidence of what your claiming.If loomis is too basic for you you'd expect to have abilities on par with or superior to loomis.
>>2548617
Exactly, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.He hasn't shown any, it's obvious his art is shit tier and he's speaking completely out of his ass.
>>2548330
Yeah. I never really started "getting it" until I dived deep into anatomy. Not that I'm any good now, but at least I can grab a pen and sketch out an idea. I couldn't do that when I had no concept of the human body in my mind.
>>2548650
Also would like to add, now that I'm going back to fun with a pencil I'm finding it brilliant but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't even realize the brilliancy was there if I didn't already have all this knowledge. Loomis is nice in that he summarizes all that knowledge into a nice package, but that's no use if you're at square 0. It's sorta like learning grammar before you learn the vocabulary.
do you guys have vilppu pdfs besides the drawing manual?
>>2548644
>How does his art have anything to do with the truth in the argument.
Because he made a claim that loomis is too basic for him, he never made any logical argument to argue against,
this isn't math or logic, this is basic shit he has to provide evidence for, it's like the equivalent of you arguing bigfoot exists and saying its a logical fallacy for me to ask for evidence.
>>2548671
>Because he made a claim
You don't even know that dumbass.
It was a universal argument. The post didn't say that he/she personally hadn't used Loomis. Are you butthurt over that some on this globe may not need Loomis just because you did? That's what this is starting to look like.
>>2548684
How about you try following the conversation you dyslexic cunt
>>2548688
How about you do that yourself first before you post, you sperging idiot.
>>2548684
>It was a universal argument.
I'm responding to a fucking claim that loomis was obvious for him. Which is something that can't be logically debated against retard.
> Are you butthurt
I'm just calling out a shithead who thinks they are better than they are, I don't care if someone never uses loomis in the firstplace, But if someone says they were somehow beyond his teaching sbefore they had a single drawing class yes I'm going to fucking call them out.
>>2548330
Vilppu changed my life. He taught me how to draw. I tried everything out there and vilppu is the best. Yes he might put you to sleep sometimes but he really does hammers home his thoughts.
>>2547859
When you gonna upload the videos anon?
>>2548699
So what if it was? He/she doesn't need to prove anything to you just because you demand it. This is an anonymous message board. Nobody cares if you don't believe somebody. Maybe someday you'll learn if it's true.
Personally I find your claim that some cannot be more adapt at visualizing shapes. It's no different from something like being good at math. Upbringing can also be a big factor with what input people have had, especially if their parents are in that industry.
You really sound like a basic logical concept is a personal insult to your self image.
>>2548695
Learn to read faggot moron
>>2548454
>I know what you mean. I had to skip Loomis because it was just so dumbed down
>>2548481
>Dumbed down means that he wastes a lot of time on stuff that was already obvious for someone like me who had never taken a drawing class
>>2548580
>post some of your art
>>2548591
>I'm a retarded simpleton that thinks that a fallacy meme poster means I win
>>2547859
i think this is the first finished drawing/ilustration i have seen from vilppu
>>2548709
It's like you are going in circle and when people get off your ride you think you have won.
>>2548708
> He/she doesn't need to prove anything to you just because you demand it.
Obviously I know that, at the same token I don't have to believe them just because they state it. Maybe 1 out of 1000 artist will have been born with that ability it's up to the person making the claim to prove it not on me to believe them.
>>2548728
So you want them to draw or upload something for you? I mean why would anyone reveal something already online that could reveal their identity to a shitposter on 4chan no matter how right they may be? I know I wouldn't.
"Post your art" is the standard /ic/ ad hominem fallacy.
>>2548734
look up the definition of ad hominem, asking people to post their art does not meet that criteria.
He/she could post a life drawing they never posted online to prove their point. If they don't that's their call, I honestly don't give a shit but it would honestly be really interesting if they did post something amazing and proved they were what they claim.
>>2548744
Posting art is not a proof of anything in this case. It'll just give people something to shitpost about.
Fuck, seriously. So what if you see he got the fundamentals. Now you can just say he lied about not having read loomis and there were no reason for him to show his art in the first place. This place man, sometimes...
>>2548710
>"finished"
>>2548713
"Loomis was already obvious for me-and I've never even taken a drawing class"
Is not a 'universal argument' you mouth breathing mongoloid. The post you made where you said 'some people are better at some things than others' that only received a single flippant response is not the subject no matter how many times you use it as a red herring. The subject is your baseless, boastful statement that could be substantiated so simply by exposing your 'beyond Loomis' skills that you purport to have, but don't.
>>2548756
>Posting art is not a proof of anything in this case
It's proof he/she is not a shit tier artist speaking completely out his ass.
>>2547859
Like the other anons pointed out, he's talking about the rear mass of the cranium that gets "deleted" if you follow the Loomis circle method.
But really you should be finding your own lay in and building mileage with it. And it will change based on your drawing and what you need it to do. If you're doing gesture or concentrated more on the figure or action you'll have a more simple head lay in whereas if you're doing portraiture you may have a more complicated lay in. The Reilly method (and derivative) lay ins are great for this range of complexity because you can keep or leave out quite a bit of the different "scaffolding" of the lay in.
>>2548477
>I don't understand how loomis is "dumbed down".
I don't want to put words into that anon's mouth (just muh dick bix nood), but he's probably referring to the more structured method of Loomis.
Which really isn't all that different than other "systems" desu, because before you can start breaking and bending conventions you need to know them anyway. Even Steve Huston is all about "Simple but Characteristic".
>>2548644
>How does his art have anything to do with the truth in the argument.
He's not arguing that Loomis is useless in general, he's arguing that Loomis is useless for him because he was beyond it before he even started.
He's not making an argument of logic, he's making a concrete claim. Which he was asked to prove.
>>2548734
>I mean why would anyone reveal something already online that could reveal their identity
Lol know one here knows you bro.
And people post actual known artists stuff here all the time, sometimes claiming it's theirs because they think it's obscure enough, and sometimes it's an actual known artist.
>>2548330
I'm actually the same way. I recently finished Fun with a Pencil and I was really frustrated by a lot of it. I've started looking at some other tutorials and artbooks like Bridgmans life drawing book, which helped me understand how to draw heads and faces much better than Loomis. I think I'll check out Vilppu soon. Sounds like it might work better for me.
>>2549430
>Bridgmans life drawing book, which helped me understand how to draw heads and faces much better than Loomis
You're literally fucking lying. Bridgman's face drawing is repugnant in both technique and end-result.
>>2549465
Agreed. Bridgman is god-tier but his heads are pretty bad. For some reason most head constructions are pretty bad though, Hogarth, Bridgman, arguably Loomis, Hampton's constructions look alien but are a good way of thinking.
>>2547859
Vilppu is a god Loomis is a demi god
I love both too but I'd believe him over Loomis even if he was still around.
Loomis is great for beginners and will get them up to a level where Vilppu can take over and take there skills further.
>>2548517
>tfw rapidly losing Neuroplasticity
>>2547859
Loomis was directly involved with a portion of the Golden age of illustration.
Vilppu worked on some tier 3 films and teches to plebs.
>literally lobster caviar v. Chef boyardee.
>>2550812
>Loomis was directly involved with a portion of the Golden age of illustration.
Kek, he lived at the trailing end of that era but was never a major contributor in terms of art. He was a mediocre illustrator who painted emotionally dead images with shitty pulp colours and sophistication. His greatest achievement were his books. He's several tiers below actual defining Golden Age guys like those that were a part of the Brandywine tradition.
Would anyone happen to have the Vilppu videos on new masters academy up for grabs?
>>2548769
You know what I mean nigga
>>2551175
Yeah, here you go
http://www.newmastersacademy.org/subscription-pricing/
>>2551186
>supporting jews
Wanting a download link.
>>2551189
>slurring jews while being an entitled fat little saucer tits kike that won't fork over the equivalent of $.80 a day for professional art instruction
Kill yourself
>>2551189
fuck off and get a part time job if you have to
>>2551186
glenn pls
>>2551186
New masters academy is cheap as fuck for the content ,If you can't afford it you need to worry about more than your art
>>2551359
There is something to be said about a person's interest in a topic and how much he is willing to sacrifice for his enlightenment.
