is it a beginner's trap?
>>7849170kinda, there are better things to start with, like proko series on youtube
>>7849170Not at all
>>7849223+ I wouldn’t say it’s a “trap” for beginners, it may just be a bit overwhelming and discouraging for begs. Loomis is a better place to start to understand proportions, landmarks, perspective, etc, and then Bridgman. Especially since Bridgman is so stylized that makes it twice as difficult
>>7849170>incomprehensible writing>not good at teaching construction>not the best at teaching anatomy>not the best at teaching observation>unconcise scribbles>ugly style>doesn't actually teach drawing from lifeThe only people I've seen shill this book are people who like copying from books for years on end and have made zero completed works, much like Bridgman himself.It's got some interesting bits like the chain-like structure of the arm and the little step down from the wrist to the hand. but there's much better books you can be working from, like XWC, especially for a beg, although anatomy is just a beg trap in general
>>7849276pyw pls
>>7849170Yes! Just draw shit all the time! Find good mentors and watch their videos. I recommend James Gurney and Aaron Blaise to start with
>>7849282tell me where I'm wrong
>>7849170it's too hard for a beginner
>>7849170Drawing manuals are autistic trap.
>>7849170Yes, it decontextualizes his drawings. Buy- life drawing- constructive anatomy- human machine And study in that order, they build on each other visually. Then move onto heads, features, faces / hundred hands / drapery
>>7849276>incomprehensible writingI disagree, but even then, it’s an art book at the end of the day. Even if it was all gibberish, it’s the drawings that matter most>not good at teaching construction Because the book isn’t about construction, it’s about observing from the real world. The reason Loomis touches on it more and Bridgman doesn’t is because Loomis is about imaginative drawing, this book isn’t for that>not the best at teaching anatomy Bullshit. He has a section for every part of the body, he takes different approaches to drawing the same thing, he draws complex ideas with simplified, abstract demonstrations (for example the shoulder), and he even draws the body similarly to machinery at some points. If you can’t learn anatomy with all that, idk what to tell you>not the best at teaching observationDrawing the same subject with multiple varying approaches is *how* you master observation, because it isn’t a linear approach. Bridgman does this multiple times. So again, bullshit.>unconcise scribblesIn some places, absolutely. Most of the drawings are clear though >ugly styleCompletely subjective. His faces (especially the baby ones) are certainly ugly, but people aren’t studying Bridgman to mimic his style anyways , it’s to understand what he knows >doesn’t actually teach drawing from life In addition to everything above, he literally does do this. He covers all elements of drawing such as drawing the full figure, doing portraits, specific body parts, and even clothed figures. Drawing from life, particularly humans, doesn’t really require extensive construction knowledge aside knowing how to draw an accurate box. It’s mostly a process in interpretation more than anything, which Bridgman teaches
>>7849223I think this proves it IS a trap. This looks like you've just poorly copied a picture from the book. Your proportions are super wack. Thats a gigantic hand with a teeny little stub thumb and weird obese cone fingers. You'd make 100x more progress by just drawing your own hand over and over.
>>7849290NTA but my only critique is your pose. Its very stiff. Try holding a fake gun and knife and record yourself doing cool stances. Everything else is awesome.
>>7849368You’re right about all of these things, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a trap. I did the drawing to learn something, not to be perfect. I did fall into the trap of copying, but that’s mostly because of where I was as an artist. At the end of the day, I was just trying to draw. All of my Bridgman drawings still taught me what to prioritize when I eventually moved towards drawing my own hand, as you mentioned.>You’d make 100x more progress by just drawing your own hand over and overYou’re 100% right, which is why have done that as well, as shown in pic rel. everything you see in the drawing was one way or another influenced by what I learned in Bridgman. That’s my point, you study his work to use as a guideline for what is important when you do inevitably upgrade to drawing from life.
>>7849352>I disagreehttps://youtu.be/HrPi92DnMis?t=1713I do agree that the text in books like these don't really matter>Because the book isn’t about constructionexactly, he assumes you already know construction and perspective, something a beg wouldn't know>not the best at teaching anatomyMy point is that the book is not the best, from simplified to medical text level, there are better books on anatomy, begs don't need to know the insertions for the arm muscles>not the best at teaching observationHe doesn't teach you how to copy like Keys to Drawing or Meme Side of the Brain does. A beg will not be able to copy his drawings
>>7849432These are fair points. >begs don’t need to know the insertions of the arm muscles >a beg will not be able to copy his drawingsI still disagree with these things though. I feel like you guys are underestimating what a beg is capable of. Like for example I have a friend who was a “beg” in the sense that he wasn’t necessarily as experienced in art that I was, mileage wise, but he still was a really good artist. When he did Bridgman, his drawings were actually really good, a lot better than mine. Like I said earlier in the thread, Loomis is a better start, however, Bridgman challenges beginners in a way that Loomis doesn’t, which I think isn’t necessarily good but it isn’t bad either. Like the other anon said, I was just poorly copying that drawing, but I was also challenging myself and as a result drawing a hand is a lot easier. I can’t say id feel the same way if I drew Loomis. I just think that sometimes beginners are a bit infantilized here in the sense that, yes they can indeed learn these things and apply them from an early point. Like I wouldn’t ENCOURAGE someone start with Bridgman, but if they said that’s what they want and they think that can handle it, who am I to stop them?
>>7849170'https://davidfinchart.com/where-to-start-and-where-to-go-from-there-a-roadmap-to-professional-quality-art/I wish I got the advice I got here a few years ago on one of the generals to follow the David Finch roadmap earlier when I started drawing. Bridgman was the artist who brought the artistic tradition from Europe to America. Everyone's first impression is to be turned away from the sketches but you realize as you draw them how good they are. Whether they look messy cause Bridgman drew with a twig dipped in oil or whatever doesn't matter because in each of those drawings lies a mastery of perspective, form, rhythm, anatomy, contrapposto, everything. It is a rite of passage to study from this book if you're serious at all about drawing. Frank Frazetta, David Rapoza, and the image I attached is from a young artist Finch mentored who was given the same advice to study Bridgman. Please just study Bridgman and follow the same method that Finch lays out. It's the same advice the eastern master Krenz gives just in a different package. You cannot go wrong studying from this book. I understand the criticism people saying it's a trap because the challenge of copying everything twice is extremely daunting and it's not for everyone, but if you're at all up for it then do it.
>>7849459Agreed with everything you said but especially >You cannot go wrong studying from this bookTho x1000%. That’s my problem with the “trap” mindset, is that it ignores that all drawing is good drawing. Is a beg gonna be able to handle all of the concepts shown here? Maybe, maybe not. But I guarantee that they will not be a *worse* artist after studying this book
>>7849170it's not for beginners. it's for art students entering higher education.
He has a few solid drawings worth trying to understand. The thing is, people always copy his "style." And every time, someone chimes in to say not to do that, and instead extract the concepts behind it not the literal line-shapes. Stan Prokopenko even has a video on it. But people keep doing it.It's probably fair to say it's more on the advanced side and you need to have some understanding of anatomy as well as know how to study effectively before attempting to decode it.Here is an example of how to study it. This knee drawing is one of the first results for "Bridgman anatomy" on Google. It's pretty good if you know what to look for. I think of Kinu Nishimura's knees when I see it - she always draws knees with these really long insertions and implies a lot with only a few lines. So you would first need to notice the similarity in another artist or model, and then study Bridgman next to the artist/model to get anything out of it.
>>7849170I knew Bridgman wasn't for beginners but I like being thrown in the trenches. So I have no regret using it even if it takes me longer
>>7849526pyw
>>7849526>even if it takes me longerWhat's the faster way, anon?
>>7849532would you like an image or my unknown yt channel? keep in mind I'm beg, but I aware I'm beg
>>7849546I kneel.
>>7849368>You'd make 100x more progress by just drawing your own hand over and over.This, this is the value of drawing from life. I've learned more about drawing hands from this than I have ever have from guides
>>7849606pyh
>>7849538anon I.... that's the point I'm trying to make. idk
>>7849607Lol
>>7849170It's not a beg trap but it's not for beginners. You should only study from it after you have the theory of anatomy under your built with a course like Scott Eaton's anatomy.Then, you use Bridgman to learn to draw the anatomy that you have theoretical knowledge of.Ignore the Finch posters. Watch the Ron Lemen videos on youtube>>7849525Bridgman is all over JP game illustrations and character designs. Daisuke's Guilty Gear illustrations are full of Bridgman anatomy
>>7849170>is it a beginner's trap?The biggest beginner trap with any tutorial or book or course is getting permanently stuck in the preparatory mode of doing tutorials or courses and never actually making any non-practice works.
>>7849778This
>>7849170I mean, do you want to draw like that? Do you think that drawing on the cover looks good?
>>7849290AI.
>>7849290>>7849369>>7849817I feel so old, man.
>>7849170People get stuck because it doesn't give much guidance on how to start the drawing. All the meme teachers have a 123 method to lay the figure in and start building it up.
>>7850410https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw7I3tUXgG4
>>7849525Kini Nishu's art makes my pp wet and hard, always, no matter what
>>7850710More like I was surprised by the newfag giving feedback, but sure.
>>7849525I really like your headspace, anon. The main problem with people's approach to Bridgman's work is not understanding the purposes of his drawings. Most of the writings on his style of anatomy wasn't even his 1:1 writings. Almost all of it was his own students' notes gathered from his own lectures and prep notes. He's more akin to a Plato or Socrates in his style of teaching. The main reason he's so popular is because he thought of the human body as a machine, not a bundle of blobs, and that his drawings aren't a medically anatomical reproduction of reality. He does break down the correct parts and also names the anatomy, but it's in service to know why the harsh geometry of his figures looks like that. The reason for the aesthetics of his drawings are to more easily showcase the human form, as a lot of people have problems generating forms from circles and blobs. When reading, keep in mind that his drawings are a foundation, not to be copied 1:1, but to be broken down and understood as simple mechanical shapes. Rounding off the corners and making the shapes more realistic is a goal afterwards.The main meme of his work is to copy it twice, once with a ref, once without. His teachings are secondary to a memory game, which is basically what it is. It's better to break down the forms and play around with them, which is why learning basic geometry is important when learning Bridgman.
>>7849546I fucking love this style of late 80's to early 90's rendering and composition. Great stuff, anon.
>>7849546Peak . I love this
>>7849546great work anon, looks like the real deal
>>7849525>>7851028Some tips on reading Bridgman's books and teachings is to pretend to be sitting in his lectures and try to understand what he's saying as you draw. Not the best method but it's good to challenge yourself. If that annoys you then just read the book in this format: look at the drawings first, read his notes, then look back at the drawing again. My dumbass brain starts to put the pieces together like a child putting together random Legos to create something interesting. Its a begs trap if you not willing to see what he see's. if that fails then just go on YouTube and have someone else explain it to you. Proko, Kuosketch, Kristian nee, Ron Lemon, monderdayjames give their two cents and its enough. rest is up to you
>>7849817>>7849369Tell me you're newfags without telling me you're newfags.>>7850410I feel you fren.
the thing is that people dont want to learn so they dont understand why the things are they way they are, what they do instead is do the book and not think about it then probably come here and complain somewhere.actual good thread
>>7849170here, the secret everyone asks forhttps://www.barnstonestudios.com/myrons-bookshelf/
>>7849525The kneecaps look like theyre pointing inward way too much like theyre dislocated and the lower shins look like theyre snapped and rotated in opposing directions. Is this intentional, like a "style"?
>>7856278I honestly don't know what you're talking about. I keep looking at it to try and see what you mean and I'm getting nothing. Can you redline it?
>>7856281Reads like this to me?
>>7856302I'm trying really hard to see what your issue is, I really am...I think you're talking about the various sudden plane changes that occur around the knee, best seen in Cammy (left). If that's what you mean, that's just how legs kinda work. Knees are really bony and hard surfaces surrounded by all sorts of fleshy muscles and their attachment points. There's also a lot variety in how legs are shaped based on genetics, physique, and posture, so you see all sorts of configurations.She probably is exaggerating the tendency a bit but that's the soul of art after all.
>>7856319The knee is a hinge, right? So the femur and the shin should always share pretty similar rotations (forward directions should match) atleast down to the ankle. like in your reference photo both leg bones share the same forward rotation. Not trying to shit on anyone's art, maybe its just me being too harsh on stylization or missing something
>>7856358The femur doesn't point straight to the ground nor align with the vertical axis of the tibia. Especially in women you see a drastic tilt toward center, since they have wider pelvises. Even in that picture of Kneeya, a skinny Japanese woman, you can see the gesture of the femur splaying and up out from the knee joint (you drew the femur very thick to compensate).This flow is actually pretty important for getting legs that look convincing (not necessarily realistic, mind) and a lot of people fuck it up. Wouldn't count Nishimura among them.
>>7856378Can the top and bottom of the fibula ever rotate perpendicularly to each other like in picrel?
>>7856399*tibiaOn the inside I guess
>>7856403I guess she doesn't draw the foot/ankle perfectly anatomically aligned with the direction of the knee, if that's what you've been hinting at. It's really so minor that I didn't know what you were talking about. It's one of those things that no one will ever care about unless you just make an outright bad drawing, frankly.
>>7856414Ok
>>7849170My main worry from when I checked the book, is that a lot of his drawings look very blocky and bony, and I fear my style just becoming like that, when I want more smooth results.
>>7856584funny enough, that's the point
I feel like the book is way too hard as a total beginner, or am I wrong? Are you supposed to copy his drawings until they start to resemble what is actually on the page? (Because at first I dont think the copies will look anything like his)
>>7856996There's different types of copying for practice. You want to know what you're learning ahead of time. The most basic is just trying to do a 1 to 1 copy. You're not analyzing the artists style or anything you're just practicing your ability to copy precisely. If you struggle with copying 1 to 1 you probably will struggle to analyze Bridgemans figures because you haven't learned to see a drawing as it is, how can you deconstruct what he's indicating and why if you can't even put it down accurately?You can use Bridgeman purely to practice your 1 to 1 copying, but you probably have artists you're more excited to copy so you might as well start on those and when you get some confidence then move onto the academic figure drawings
>>7857002Thats a good explanation, thanks anon. Yeah I think I gotta work in my copying in general first, I'm trying to draw stuff from life but with varying success
>>7849276What's XWC? Google is not googling. Also this is such a good thread wtf
>>7857009Xiao Wei Chun, you can probably find it in the artbook thread
>>7857011Interesting. I really like these drawings. Thank you.
>>7857011>>7857009This book seems good, after glossing through it, not sure if i'll stick to it but I like the drawings, here's a study I did.
>>7857266Very nice anon
