>look up Andrew Loomis work >It's this So this is the power for the highest level of construction... Woah.... He would get absolutely COOKED both today by Instagram artists and before his time by old masters. Funny how he lived in the only time mid drawings were considered impressive. He was the equivalent of one of those people who get rich by telling other people how to get rich
>>7880352fr unc is straight jestermogged by twittermaxxing larpartists
>>7880352I could overlook his bad art if the subject matter was actually interesting. It's all just ugly women and babies.
why is every hobby board on this site just armchair experts talking shit about actual proven masters
>>7880380Ignore them, they're just trying to be funny. They desperately want their posts to appear on r/4chan or whatever it is.And for your info OP, 0/10.
>>7880352>>7880363That's what women looked like back then though
>>7880380oh yeah? what guild granted him the title of master?
>>7880380Because if they were actually promising, they'd be doing that hobby instead of shit posting about said hobby.
>>7880352So, what we should study then?
>>7880432accounting
>>7880436this is actually good advice. outjewing the jew and then still having some time to draw. drawing would actually be fun if you were forced to look at numbers and money all day, just for the contrast of something truly boring
wait i think i read an article about this
>>7880352If this was a painting of that haughty looking woman pressing her foot down on some dude's nuts drawn at the same exact quality he'd be making fucking bank and you know it.
>>7880436lmaoAt least you can make the argument that art will be safe from AI because people will still want the real thing; accounting will be one of the first things to be completely automated.
>>7880352looks incredible
>>7880352>He would get absolutely COOKED today by Instagram artistslike who
>>7880627>t. retardAI fucking up a hand isn't gonna put you in jail, good luck arguing that it was ai that evaded taxes and not you. There's a reason AI impacted art more than driving despite being at it longer, and that's that a tiny hiccup can have catastrophic consequences in one and not the other.
>>7880380cuz they're losers
>>7880627corps have entire accounting divisions, and accountants aren't the ones they're firing for ai
>>7880384Not an argument
>>7880638not him but i regularly get some absolutely insane elder master tier art on my instagram feed. modern artists are incredible, there's just so many of em it's hard to be prominent.most of them use loomis for portraits and figures, but I've seen some mind's eye maxxed artists who literally start with the outlines.
>>7880669meh >>7880637 is more visually pleasing and technically impressive
>>7880669Not a fan of copy paste and rendering. at least >>7880637 was actually drawn but realism is dogshit
>>7880352you already got BTFO in another thread about "muh old masters were never constructoids" now kill yourself already
>>7880352
>>7880352find me someone who would cook loomis
>>7880716holy sexo
>>7880716Damn. I'm not the biggest fan of his books but his paintings are a true work of art
>>7880380so if you posted andrew loomis's art on twitter today you'd get popular? Is that what you're saying? If he's a master he should easily be able to succeed today, right?
>>7880716Do we know for certain a model didn't pose for this? Loomis talks a fair deal about the importance of life drawing in his books and this looks different from >>7880715 which I can easily believe is constructed. It looks less realistic.
>>7880869loomis worked with models, he's known for cheating on his wife with them
>>7880886He cheated on more than his wife ;)
>>7880675>but realism is dogshitPlease, sate my curiosity. Post your work.
>>7880352jannies will let this garbage stay up while removing relevant threads.
>>7880667What is there for me to even argue against? That OP's shitty subjective opinion is wrong? Fuck off retard.>>7880869>Do we know for certain a model didn't pose for this?And so what if a model did? You're arguing that Loomis is shit, and now you're arguing that using references is cheating? Is this thread a competition for having shit opinions about art? You're clearly winning if it is.>>7880669Even though Loomis is clearly a talented artist, now and even then, he remains fairly obscure outside of his books and teaching. Art, like being a musician, really requires a lot of luck for you to make a splash. Skill really only improves your chances of success, it doesn't make success certain.
>>7880909You just don't understand. Construction is a myth that totally wasn't used by any actual professional past or present. Using references is cheating. You have to draw with your mind alone otherwise you're not going to make it. Therefore Loomis is clearly a hack. The level of crabbing on this shithole of a board is so off the charts it has become genuinely unbearable. I'm convinced that the anti construction faggotry is the work of one or two bitter retards who couldn't make it in art so they come here to spew bile instead
>>7880669disgusting pen grip
>>7880380/ic/ is the only place where I see people fellating Loomis, tho.
>>7880675You think Loomis didn't use a model reference for that drawing?
>>7881019Kill yourself... via alcohol poisoning by taking a shot every time someone recommends Loomis in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZHU91rRkFQThe fact that you seem to think Loomis is only respected on this board shows how much of a shut-in faggot you are. Loomis is one of the most respected art teachers there has been, perhaps only surpassed by Bridgman.It's fine if you personally do not like Loomis' art, or his teachings, but to completely dismiss his work when it's so observably true that his teachings work for a large amount of other people is ridiculous. I find myself agreeing with other anons, that the Loomis disbelievers in this thread are just likely butthurt begs who didn't gel with his teachings, but rather than simply move onto another book and another teacher, came here to bitch and moan.If the alcohol poisoning didn't kill you, maybe try one of the other books recommended in that video.
>>7881019>>7881053Norman Rockwell on Creative Illustration by Andrew Loomis: “The best book on the subject I have ever seen.”
>>7881086>“The best book on the subject I have ever seen.”>An statement said during the 50's or sowow, surely no better book has been made during the last 70 years.
>>7881094>Old thing bad, new thing good.Oh, shut up.
>>7881097New thing is supposed to improve upon old thing, yeah.
>>7880902Sure why not.
>>7881099What a profound sentiment. Care to name a few of these better books then?
>>7881099My, aren't we the optimist?
>>7881106>>7881121>Surely art teaching historically globally peaked during the 40's in the united states You are the optimistic ones.
>>7881094>wow, surely no better book has been made during the last 70 years.True.
>>7881123>New thing is supposed to improve upon old thing, yeah.>Things only get betterI'd say that's one of the more optimistic things I've read though?Or are you conceding that things, in fact, don't often get better, and that Loomis' books could still reasonably be considered among the best for learning art despite being being published so long ago?
>>7880352Andrew Loomis filters the autistic Americans
>>7881127So things got better and better until loomis then went worse precisely after him? Again, he is a respected master historically but his books are fairly outdated, simply they are not the best tool to learn drawing nowadays.
>>7881094Moving the goalpost. You said only /ic/ recommends Loomis. Then, when shown that one of the best known illustrators of the 20th century recommended Loomis, your response is that there must be better books now? That book was written at a time when illustration was in high demand and artists could become very wealthy painting pictures for print ads, magazine covers, articles, etc. So yeah, it's a product of its time, and that's the context in which Rockwell is recommending it. The information is still useful for people who want to paint effective pictures, because the principles are timeless. /ic/ is the only place where moronic weebs need to have this information repackaged (poorly, I might add) in Chinese before accepting it.
Yeah it's disappointing that the master of all constructoids was int at best
>>7881131>So things got better and better until loomis then went worse precisely after him?>So no other good drawing books came afterStop changing the topic to suit your argument. Are Loomis' books still highly regarded, and do they still do a good job? Given the constant recommendations of his work (as shown in this thread multiple times), that speaks for itself.Are there other good books? Probably, but that's a tangential point so it doesn't matter.If you want to talk about other good drawing books so bad, do so, but don't dismiss Loomis' work as bad to inflate the prestige of theirs. If their books are so good, it should be able to stand on its own, you shouldn't need to bring down Loomis to make them seem taller.
