Is trying to reproduce the drawings in Hogarth's book the good way to progress?
I recently started "reading" it and I'm just reproducing his figures while trying to understand what going on
Or should I go back to drawing photos of figures to practice
You literally do need more Loomis, memery aside fäm
>>2599988
I don't really like Loomis, I think Hogarth's book is much more "organized"
When I see the book of Loomis I don't really know what to do with those informations. Loomis seems more condensed and maybe expect more of the reader?
>>2599991
Definitely true, though at least you could do with Proko's explanation of how to do the head as he chews Loomis up for those who find him too dull and boring (like me e.g.)
>>2599991
before you all go Loomis, Hogart, Loomis, Hogarth... my experience is this:
1. Hogarth - helped me visualize the 3D volume of a body form
2. Bridgman - loose, simple, sketchy approach to drawing. Helped with losing my stifness
3. Loomis - helped with aesthetics, beauty of a line
4. Michael Hampton - helped me further understand previous stuff
5. Elliot Goldfinger - hepled me establish landmarks more correctly
6. Anatomy for Sculptors - Helped me combine everything from previous stated books and get on another level.
>>2600355
Post work? Not memong and you don't have to if you don't want to. Im just curious about what level you might be at now.
>>2600361
I'm nothing special. Now I'm on mediocre level. Easily reached
>>2600399
Noice.
>>2600355
I also got the pdf of Anatomy for Sculptors, and I don't think I can use anything in it yet to be honest.
>>2600525
that is okay. It was the last step for me. stick with Hogarth, Bridgman, Loomis and maybe even gottfried bammes
Just follow this video's approach. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0ufz75UvHs
Make fast studies. 20 or so. So your hand and brain can understand what your eyes are seeing. The volume, the angle, the shape. Then make 1 or 2 drawings where you take your time and try to draw more precisely.
Im sorry to say but that has to be the worst head shape I have ever seen. There is absolutely nothing right about any of those proportions. All of your figures will come out looking like half retarded alien robots.
>>2601403
Reproduction for reproduction sake is not good way of improving. You need to study what the drawing is about. pick one drawing from a hogarth book. make 20-ish quick studies so you feel the volume. Then try to do a photoreference or study and try applying what you saw.
Look at loomis for example. First he goes from simple understanding of a form to a more complex one. Then he goes from more complex form to adding volume with light and shadow. And lastly he goes from robotic, square-looking one to a more natural looking head. Same is applied to Hogarth. study he volume and then apply it to your work.
test post
