Hi /ic/, is Loomis really a meme? No trolling here, I've been on his FWAP but several people have told it's literally a meme. I'm not very sure whether to proceed on this book, so is it really a meme?
>>2333839
If you question Loomis that only means you haven't even bothered to see for yourself.
>>2333839
fwap is good stuff, I think his figure stuff is over rated, a bit too rigid but fwap is great for teaching you basic construction. It's a pretty short book anyway so you may as well just do it.
>>2333839
It's only a meme in the sense it gets automatically recommended to beginner in every situation. It's a set of solid books that are considered classics and it was a big deal when they got reprinted a few years back because before that they were out of print and overly expensive, and people would be forced to share illegal digital copies.
Anyways, there's good info in them, but I think some of his material is better suited for intermediate artists than true beginners. I also think his stuff either "clicks" or it doesn't. Some people swear by him, but others it doesn't work. Personally I had a lot more success with understanding figure drawing when I abandoned Loomis and used Bridgman instead. Try stuff out, see what works for you.
Loomis possible one of the most important authors to learn fundamentals and that's why it became a meme.
>>2333839
There's a lot of more recent, better compiled learning resources. Loomis is not particularly good at teaching, and with so many options I wouldn't really recommend Loomis to anyone. More modern authors have built upon these books and done a better job at it.
>>2333839
Loomis for design and Hampton for figure drawing. Sketching manga style for clothes and props.
>>2333839
Loomis is redundant for naturally good high IQ artists.
