Hey /ic/, are there any alternative books to Loomis's Fun with a Pencil to learn construction?
I really don't like this book and no matter how I try, I can't seem to read more than 5 pages at a time.
I once watched a youtube video on construction and it was more helpful than the book.
>>2338143
Just to add, I did all the silly cartoon heads up to page 31. After that, I just skimmed through everything else.
FWAP teaches you everything you need to know. I suggest you cope with the circumstances, my nigga.
>let me google that for you
Michael Hampton's Figure Drawing filetype:pdf
>first result
>>2338146
but seriously FWAP is all you need if you're a newbie
Not OP but similar question:
I've been grinding loomis for a while now. Do I just keep going? When do I move on to something else? Do I have to draw all the examples in the back of the book? pls just tell me what to do and I'll take a bunch of adderall and do it.
>>2338147
Could you state the purpose of the book a bit more explicitly than what is stated? I've been drawing a bunch of these blooks and I feel like I'm becoming more adept at understanding what creates the illusion of form and shape, but I still feel like I'm basically just executing a set of instructions without actually being aware of why things are done the way they are. I often just slap on a few circles for cheeks and chin where it feels 'right', and while the results seem to come close to the book, I don't feel like I'm gaining knowledge that is applicable outside of just drawing these funny faces.
Should I just keep at it, or am I approaching the book the wrong way?
>>2338149
hampton is new and improved/modified loomis. if hampton is for beginners, like level 1, then loomis is for level 0. it's even more basic
if you know nothing then do loomis then hampton. if you know form and perspective then jump to hampton
>>2338161
OP here. After FWAP, I was planning on moving to Perspectives (Norling) and Figure Drawing (Vilppu and Loomis), like the sticky says.
>>2338162
>I don't feel like I'm gaining knowledge that is applicable outside of just drawing these funny faces.
You are though, even if you don't "feel" like it. The moment of clarity comes when you realize that this is literally the same way you draw pretty much anything, give or take a few extraneous tools that people use for mechanical drawing.
>>2338169
nothing wrong with that. i'd recommend other books but there are a dozen paths to take and the sticky will take you where you want to go
>>2338162
That's how I feel. That is why I was looking for alternatives to Loomis but the consensus seems to be for me to just do Loomis.
>>2338169
for perspective find a book called vanishing point, it's more in depth and easier to read than any perspective book I've seen before, I just read it yesterday but I wish I had it when I was starting out. You might also want to check out D'amelio's perspective handbook first, which is short and covers very basic perspective.
>>2338143
Jack Hamm is much better than Loomis for begginers, he teaches you to construct a tradditional portrait and visual solutions to some stuff like hair and folds that drastically accelerates the process while practicing.
Generally I think FWAP is a bit shit for beginners because the novelty of the Loomis cartoon heads makes tons of people completely miss the point of construction and they just try and copy Loomis heads.
>>2338182
>vanishing point
Author?
>>2338559
good point, he makes his case better in drawing the head and hands than FWAP which is too bad. ive seen so many of those lumpy old man heads on tumblr and DA
