>>7957961
Loomis has the right idea in that he is trying to provide beginners with a process they can actually use to draw things on their own. This is shockingly rare. Most other resources aimed at beginners tell them to draw things with no instruction, or just have them perform exercises that they can't reasonably take anything away from because they don't have a real drawing process yet to provide context to them.

The problem, though, is that the book immediately goes from "it is okay if you can only draw a lumpy circle" to "you must be able to draw every form in every orientation and have them intersect in every possible way and also be able to modify them to fit your needs," which is a bit of a tall order for an absolute beginner, especially when there is no instruction on how to do any of those things. Someone who hasn't learned any basic sketching techniques or how to use 2D shapes yet isn't going to get anywhere with 3D form-based construction. It's just not a good starting point, and trying to rush beginners towards it is one of the most common failings of instructional drawing resources.

File: pb.png (1.05 MB, 1128x958)

1.05 MB PNG

>>7957961
For my money, it's Preston Blair's Cartoon Animation. It doesn't teach drawing realistically, and only teaches cartoon characters of varying complexity, but I think building characters out of simple shapes, and having those shapes connect in an appealing and believable way is the very core of what drawing is, and everything else comes from that.
On top of that, it teaches breaking things down into those simple shapes yourself, being able to copy a reference well, and how to judge proportions.
I think going from Blair, to a book on more realistic figure drawing is a good pathway, so Cartoon Animation is the best gateway into drawing.

>>7957978
>The problem, though, is that the book immediately goes from "it is okay if you can only draw a lumpy circle" to "you must be able to draw every form in every orientation and have them intersect in every possible way and also be able to modify them to fit your needs," which is a bit of a tall order for an absolute beginner, especially when there is no instruction on how to do any of those things.
My interpretation of it is that loomis is showing that basic shapes can be used to make more complex drawings, because immediately after that, he starts having you drawing those wonky 'blook' heads, most of which have rather odd shapes to account for amateurs who can't draw circles well.
So maybe the though process was - "look what drawing these shapes well can do! It's a skull!! But for now, draw these ugly little things to get some practice in".

File: 51VmHW8Li6L.jpg (52 KB, 500x772)

52 KB JPG

It has good perspective exercises great for beginners and good knowledge. But the problem is that most of the text is convoluted word salad. The instructions for the simple ass exercises give you no idea of what the exercise looks like and instead gives you garbage word salad that you have to put ten times more effort in than the actual exercise itself. The fact that this book somehow even gets popular perplexes me, youre better off with torrenting a video course or getting the perspective drawing handbook than perspective made hard.

>>7958059
Even drawabox or drawacocks teaches begs perspective better than that incomphrehensible book.

>>7957961
>>7957978
>>7958051
>>7958059
>>7958062
pyw, larpers

File: Cool Drawing.png (11 KB, 572x577)

11 KB PNG

>>7958081
One of my better ones. I've gotten pretty good at hands.

File: Untitled132_20260605202539.png (46 KB, 1902x1291)

46 KB PNG

>>7958081
Here, a line. Ya happy now?

File: 20260605_095549.jpg (84 KB, 765x1020)

84 KB JPG

>>7958062
>>7958059
I actually like it, so I bought one. I love the simple artwork he uses to illustrate. And yes, it has a bunch of words, but almost all books you retards recommend have even more words.

>>7957961
Dynamic Bible by Peter Han is a nice one, if not for the weird wording in many lessons that confuses the shit out of me.

File: 1778345197425045.png (851 KB, 1000x842)

851 KB PNG

>>7957961
I grinded that book 5 years ago
It was helpful, idk why it gets so much hate

>>7958137
The main reason I see is that the haters (or one very active sperg) hate the book mostly because it teaches perspective towards the end, rather than immediately, and they feel very strongly that it should be taught first.
He still teaches perspective, so I don't really get why they're so amendment about it being the very FIRST thing you learn, before even learning how to draw simple cartoon heads.

Speaking of, if there is a point to criticize the book, it's that Loomis is a fairly atrocious cartoonist, and a lot of those heads are damn hideous, so they're not exactly fun to draw.

>>7958143
>Loomis is a fairly atrocious cartoonist
NTA but I agree completely. The blooks are painful to look at due to how ugly they are. I personally rather like Loomis particularly his Creative Illustration book which imo is his best work but goddamn could he have picked some other "simple" thing to ease beginners into drawing. Animals or plants or anything relatively simple in shape really

>>7958143
learning form before perspective is fine imo, lots of artists get by with a limited understanding of perspective so long as their forms are good. people say perspective is in everything but so is form, so i dont think it really matters too much.

File: vdm.jpg (61 KB, 612x588)

61 KB JPG

>>7957978
agreed. Loomis' books are frustrating. Parts of them are really important to beginners (e.g. the head drawing method) but most of the other content is hard to understand or inapplicable to someone who doesn't understand the drawing process yet. It's a surefire way to discourage yourself as a beginner.
Figure drawing for all it's worth suffers a lot from this (which I own). Sure, it's full of beautiful illustrations but as a learning resource, I find it hard to use.
I haven't worked through Fun with a pencil but I expect it's his most approachable.

>>7958059
>>7958062
>Zoomers beaten by words again.
Embarrassing. It's a damn fine book. It teaches perspective better than the Robertsonnomecron despite being almost 100 years old.

>>7958121
>>7958161

No, both of you are fucking dumbasses. I didnt say that there are a lot of words. I said that the way of how the words were used in a way that is fucking bizarre despite the book using english. Its kind of ironic, how you both skipped all of my words and went straight to giving me a criticism for the things that both of you just did.

Besides, as I mentioned before the book lacks visual instructions for the simple fucking exercises that couldve been explained in a much more better way and instead just uses that bastardized dialect of the english language to explain it.

>>7958167
dunno, man. I had no problems with the wording despite English not even being my first language.
But who knows. Maybe I need to look into it again. I was a teenager way back when I read it. Perhaps my perception is off.

File: baba jeetu.png (62 KB, 476x693)

62 KB PNG

>>7958081
Sorry it took me while to complete this masterpiece.

>>7957978
Apologies beforehand for my bluntness.
Loomis wrote FWAP for beginners. He did not write it for idiots. There is a difference.
It is exceptionally difficult to make general instructional material suitable to remedial students. This is in some ways compounded by the generational decrease in the mean of certain aptitudes - students nowadays are taught fewer subjects, write less, have a shrinking vocabulary, and rarely use tools of art that have been subverted by technology. So perhaps it shouldn't be a surprise that something written for beginners in the 1930s may appear as advanced material now.

File: 1771442395366573.jpg (48 KB, 644x500)

48 KB JPG

>>7958059
>>7958062
This confuses and enrages the zoomer

>>7958059
You don't even need perspective lessons, that shit is so simple

>>7958051
Stupid question: How good is Preston Blair book compared to FwaP?

File: maedax_no_haikei_moe.jpg (355 KB, 1849x1305)

355 KB JPG

the actual rules for one to three point perspective are fairly simple, I think what gets beginners is that knowing the rules is not enough
there's a whole aspect of scale and proportion of human spaces that never gets enough attention, so that when they try to apply the rules it always comes out wrong

>>7958212
Both are easy enough to find, take a look at them and see which you favor.

Obviously since I said as much, I think Preston Blair's Cartoon Animation is the better choice, especially so if you want to draw cartoons, but Fwap has its benefits as well.
Fwap not only teaches an introduction to more realistic drawing, which Blair's book does not, but is also probably a better intro point for some who has absolutely zero experience drawing, whereas Blair's book is probably better for those with a little bit of drawing experience.
Blair's first drawing exercise is drawing the same face on an egg from different angles - which I can imagine would be quite difficult from total beginners. Fwap starts you off with ugly blob, but those are a lot less intimidating or difficult as an introduction lesson.
Blair's book is full of fantastically designed characters which are a pleasure to draw (with earlier versions outright teaching you using classic characters like bugs bunny, but later printings use Blair's own knock off versions), while Loomis' blobby 'blooks' are a good part hideous and not particularly pleasant to draw because of it.
Blairs book, because of it's focus on animation style drawing, teaches you how to draw characters in such a way as to be able to redraw them over and over from various angles with various expression, while Loomis does not, and seems to have trouble doing so himself - when he draws a character multiple times over, their face changes somewhat.
Blair's book has no info on perspective, whilst Loomis' book has an entire section for it.
Blair's book teaches how to animate, as well as concepts from cartooning that just improve your drawings immensely (line of action), that Loomis' fwap doesn't touch upon (though his later books do).

So there's pros and cons to both.
But if we're talking appealing drawings within to study from, Preston Blair's Cartoon Animation is the head & shoulders winner.

Brent Eviston solved the beginner question

>>7958137
>idk why it gets so much hate
personally, I'm just annoyed by faggots who spam the cover image on random boards like /v/

>>7958270
it's funny when you recognize it

File: 1778827073175.jpg (515 KB, 1080x1476)

515 KB JPG

Id recommend "Drawing lessons from the great masters". Its a bit more advanced than loomis for example but as a beg I learned a lot from it and it is actually describing concepts in understandable language. Especially the first 3 chapters are amazing for learning on how to portrait form. The book explains concepts and then demonstrates them on drawings from masters. So you get good material to copy and know what to focus on while you study. There are also some excercises given bit they are kind of hidden in the text and not presented as excercises.

>>7957961
How do you people study someone like Hampton or Bargue? Do you simply try to copy illustrations? Because they don't have baby-holding guide like 'Fun with a pencil'.

>>7958191
Most people who show an interest in art would be happier just doing the wine aunt thing where you do a shitty Bob Ross painting with the girls while drinking some cheap rosé. Or just post a shitty ms-paint comic once a week to five people. I started by posting scribbles to offshoot Newgrounds communities. I can't imagine how fucked up I'd be if I had thought I needed to be good enough to be professional at that point and was digging into anatomy references I wasn't ready to comprehend.

>>7958212
Blaire is more pleasant to look at, and it moves at a brisker pace because the goal is to get you animating cartoon characters. Ignore the first chapter of Cartoon Animation and skip to chapter two. Loomis is more thorough and leads into more realistic styles, but you have to tolerate his style and writing which I find avuncular, but maybe kids today really are illiterate

>>7958974
I'm sold. What would you recommend after Preston Blair book?

Here's what I don't understand about the Loomis book. He doesn't even explain the step by step process of drawing the actual stick figure. Nothing about the length of the rib cage, how to place, etc. He just shows it, that's it.

>>7959478
Yeah part of this journey is training yourself to be able to eyeball stuff and figure it out through trial and error. For really really basic stuff like that he could try to explain it to you in a step by step way, but you would end up just copying those steps in an autistic way without understanding the deeper cohesive Whole behind them.

You can't really teach someone how to think. That is a matter of personal Style that you need to develop for yourself. Style is more than just how you draw, it's how you think and how you approach life.

>>7958200
I lol'd so hard at this. Boomers apparently always had a bunch of bricks lying around to play with

>>7958062
DaB teaches you how to draw boxes floating in space with no surrounding cpntext. PME gives you immediate examples of how perspective works in the in real world. Please tell me you can be understand the difference

>>7959478
he tells you the proportions, retard

>>7958051
the book is good for copying and learning construction but there's no gesture or emotion which you have to learn from figure drawing.

Arguably the latter is much much harder to teach but if I were to start over I'd just read Walt Stanchfield's books and draw from life for the first 6 months.

I think Mike Matesi's figure drawing course or subscribing to Richard's streams would be a good start as well.

https://www.youtube.com/@RichardSmithemanArt

File: My Proportions.png (8 KB, 604x699)

8 KB PNG

>>7959478
>>7959779
I don't think he tells you where the ribcage falls, or where the pelvis' top is, but that doesn't mean his proportions are bad.
If you feel that loomis' proportions don't give enough information, look for other artist's proportions. One I found interesting, though is WM Rimmer's proportions, which rather than being heads, is made up from head to clavicle, of which the average person is made up of four measurements (head to clavicle, clavicle to top of pelvis, top of pelvis to bottom of knees, and knees to feet).

So I'm sure there's some anal artist out there who has a system to plot every single part of the body out.
Personally, I like measuring a length of the figure, Half-way is the crotch, a quarter of the top half is the head, a little below that I'll place the clavicle (half a head's length if you're having a hard time), and half way between the clavicle and crotch is where I'll place the bottom of the ribcage, and halfway again between the ribs' bottom and crotch bottom is the top of the pelvis.
I find that halfway along the ribcage is where you can place the pectoral lines (and a little above for the nipples, though you can drop both a little), and that the bellybutton is usually just easy to find naturally, though you can just place it along the top of the crotch if that's hard for you. Picrel is a quick illustration of what I mean, in case words don't suffice.
I haven't seen any guides break it down like that (though I'm sure someone has), it's just what I observed, even among other proportion guides, and it works for me so far.

Anyway, all this rambling is just may way of saying that you don't have to be a strict adherent of one proportional (or any) drawing system, because usually they don't really conflict with one another, just do what works for you. Really, that's how drawing guides are in general, you don't need to stick to them, they're just a starting point - in my opinion anyway.

File: IMG_7696.jpg (534 KB, 2010x1662)

534 KB JPG

>>7959836
even in the book for literal children where you're supposed to play with dolls as part of the process he tells you where the rigcage is, you sad submonkey

File: IMG_7697.jpg (910 KB, 1597x1558)

910 KB JPG

>>7959847
>>7959836
then in the figure drawing books he commits several pages to proportions by gender, age, type, etc

>>7959847
>you sad submonkey
You're quite the angry one aren't you?
Firstly, in that image, he is telling you where the bellybutton is, not the ribcage, which you can even see is sitting above the bellybutton, not where any mark or indication is.

>>7959849
And again, it's the same on this page.

Did you think that when we were saying Loomis didn't show where the ribcage falls, that meant he just wasn't drawing a ribcage at all? Like there was just one giant blank void on the figure?
Also, why are you so mad at me, despite me defending Loomis' proportions?

>>7959857
you can literally see the ribcage, you actual imbecile
stopped reading, your iq is abysmal, loomis should've been more obtuse just to filter niggers even harder

>>7959865
>>7959866
You're so mad, and over what? haha.
>you can literally see the ribcage
Wow, you don't say? If only I said as much. I must look like quite the fool.

>>7959869
>he doesn't show where X is
>literal scale next to X marking where it is
>hurr durr I must be retarded
yes, you are, retard

>>7959874
>Firstly, in that image, he is telling you where the bellybutton is, not the ribcage, which you can even see is sitting above the bellybutton, not where any mark or indication is.
As you can see, I literally said the ribcage is above the bellybutton.
Secondly, I myself never had an issue with with loomis proportions, which I said as much in my initial comment, I was only responding to someone who did.
I agreed that Loomis doesn't tell you EXACTLY where the ribcage falls, which you have proven to be true. Again, this doesn't mean Loomis' proportions are wrong, or bad, or anything of the sort, it just means it doesn't have as much information as that particular anon wanted, which is why I suggested they perhaps look at other proportional guides.

So what exactly are you sperging out about? And why to me? What do you disagree with?

File: Fig-06.png (629 KB, 2500x1238)

629 KB PNG

>>7959857
>>7959869
>bUt WHerE iS thE fISh'S eYe!?
Come on, buddy

>>7959877
he does show exactly where it falls, imbecile
I can tell you're brown btw

>>7959878
>>7959882
Are you both (nah, probably a raging samefag) actually retarded? How many times do I have to say I'm not the one having issues with Loomis' proportions?

>>7959886
post hand, brownoid

>>7959888
Oh, I was being trolled! Damn it, I should have know when you refused to actually answer anything reasonably, and kept acting like a retard. My bad.

>>7959892
post hand, brownoid

>>7959886
>Loomis doesn't tell you EXACTLY where the ribcage falls, which you have proven to be true
You're wrong and acting retarded, refer to >>7959878

how's hampton gesture book?

>>7959964
Eh, I think his drawings leave a lot to be desired, and feel that's an important part of learning from someone (appreciating the drawing ability).
That said, I've heard quite a few anons swear up and down that his book was the most significant one they've read.
Give it a flip through yourself and make up your own mind.

>>7959545
You don't???

>>7959545
You can do the same with LEGOs.

>>7960546
or use 3d modeling software

>>7960546
>>7960547
>t. Two plebs who can't see the spinning apple
I'll just place those bricks with my mind.

>>7959545
everything got blown up in WWII, remember?

>>7958059
>>7958062
>perspective made easy
>word salad
You are legitimately illiterate, no exaggeration. You are very stupid and you have been failed by the school system.

>>7960963
You mean the schooling system?

>>7957961
Keys to drawing or drawing on the right side of the brain workbook (not the main book with all of the pseudoscience babbling)
I used the right side workbook and it genuinely felt like I was borderline blind and retarded before learning the basic observation skills it teaches, even simple stuff like FWaP would filter me

File: ic_Art 3.jpg (121 KB, 1000x1200)

121 KB JPG

Can anyone vouch for this chart attached? I want to actually learn and start taking study more seriously because I haven't drawn more than sketches and doodles for almost a year now. I would start with the first 3 books on the chart alongside doing master studies, does anyone have any sort of advice before I actually tackle this?

>>7961925
instead of Fun With A Pencil, do Vilppu's Drawing manual. If you're looking for a beginner friendly book to draw realistic humans, it's the way better choice.

I've personally worked through Keys to Drawing, Perspective made easy and Michael Hampton's Figure Drawing book.
Keys to drawing has ugly illustrations but the lessons are good. The other two books are superb.
Overall, a good chart.

File: 1659919862299.jpg (457 KB, 1120x1556)

457 KB JPG

>>7961925
i started drawing with the attached roadmap chart. It was dumb these are all beg traps.

Figure Drawing should be like your # 1 priority after you can draw a box though. It improves everything.

>>7962188
>Vilppu's Drawing manual
>$131 used on Amazon, $491 new
Most people are pirating this I assume. I guess I could swing $60 if it's really that good.

File: villpubook.png (116 KB, 567x245)

116 KB PNG

>>7962410
Well, check out german Amazon...

Also

>1. January 1700

i knew that fucker was old; i didnt realize he was THAT old

>>7962410
>>7962417
There’s the reprint. Not sold on amazon physically. https://store.nma.art/products/vilppu-drawing-manual

You can only buy kindle version on amazon.

If you check pirated version, you’ll see it’s just a quick and fast overview of a lot of random things. Not much explanation. Reminds me of Loomis’ Figure Drawing for All It’s Worth imo.

Bert Dodson and Betty Edwards’ books have more guidance.

>>7962422
Bite the bullet is what you're saying?

File: 9780852196458-us-300.jpg (40 KB, 344x500)

40 KB JPG

Arcane knowledge resides in here and you will never ever get to know it.

>>7957961
Why is fun with a pencil so important?
t. beg

>>7962496
it's not important, it's just a handholdy introduction to drawing for turbo retards

>>7961415
It was decades ago. But I remembered that the workbook is just a collection of exercises that are also in the main book. The workbook used to be printed on cheaper spiral binder and paler, there’s space to do the exercises.

My point is getting the main book should be fine.

Unfortunately the pirated copy on annas, etc. are not very good quality. Better get a physical copy. Perhaps used. Or from the library.

>>7962445
What bullet? I was just saying the current physical reprint is sold on nma’s website. No idea if they do international shipping.

>>7962496
>Why is fun with a pencil so important?
That's a bit baity. But it is worth discussing what FWAP is.
Andrew Loomis represents the tail end Golden Age of American Illustration, and his books are perhaps the most accessible and most comprehensive instructional books from that era. There may have been others, but perhaps in equal measure serendipity and usefulness, it is his books that have survived. His contemporaries and his instructor never documented their methodology in such a formal way.
These books were written when illustration was at its height as a profession. As such, they are largely devoid of sophistry, pretensions, or academic theories. It's about what works for clients who were commercial and varied. Illustration was neither bourgeois nor infantile. It was not a playground for the dilettante offspring of the rich, but working professionals.
Loomis' style is rather conservative. His art is not ideological, and it does not push in any particular direction. For this, he is not remembered fondly by the art establishment. But for this same reason, he was among the most prolific illustrators of his time. His art is, in a way, unbiased, and that is a undervalued quality for how-to books. His instruction is widely adaptable, and proof of that is in the variety of artists who cite his methods. Which other instructor is mentioned as often by western concept artists, fine art portraitists, and Japanese hentai authors alike?

>>7962581
>>7962496
It also appears to be the first in teaching some particular methods of construction (I can't recall if it's the head, or the body, or what), and it was a method Loomis what come across himself, rather than one taught to him.
That said, apparently his book was released almost the exact same time as another person's book that taught the same method, Loomis even makes mention of that book in a later one of his, though that one is lost to the annals of time, whilst Loomis' remains.

File: dabok.jpg (165 KB, 790x1000)

165 KB JPG

What about this one?

>>7962741
David Finch recommends it as your first book, and I think it is good, but as your first?... I kind of think it drop you into the deep end, since those comic characters are quite realistic.
So if your confident in your drawing abilities as a beginner, then it's probably a good one, but if you're starting from zero, that's probably a bad one that will just frustrate you.

>>7962741
It's basically condensed Loomis, fewer words, more talk about stylization and some storytelling basics. It's not bad as introduction to drawing comics, but if you want to go in depth, Loomis is better for general drawing theory while Scott McCloud goes deeper into comics making.

>>7962775
I did remember one artist saying he would use this book as his "bible" and a couple months in their drawings were looking pretty damn good.

File: 1528997677794.gif (904 KB, 500x532)

904 KB GIF

>>7962410
>>7962417
I got it as a gift for my birthday a couple years ago (and I'm also German)
How fucking MUCH did my parents pay???

>>7960963
Can you really blame me the dialect is confusing since it's an ancient book made at a time when the English language was pretty sophisticated.

>>7963238
>Big wurds make me think muscle hurty wurty

>>7963266
kys, SEAnigger

>>7963271
>Me angry. Me angry at WORDS!
lol

>>7963266
The book was made in WW2, that's how it ancient it is. I prefer the perspective drawing hand book and marshall vandruff video course.

>>7963288
kys, SEAnigger

>>7963292
LoL, this bot. Well, I do agree that perspective made easy is ass. You don't have to larp as a white supremacist chud. You're probably brown as fuck behind that screen.

File: ERGE.png (692 KB, 647x864)

692 KB PNG

ENTER

>>7963305
Woah, what is this? Is this similar to Michael Hampton's books?

The Koran

>>7963308
I don't get it

File: force.png (248 KB, 677x859)

248 KB PNG

>>7963307
Honestly it's its own thing. It's an approach to gesture that incorporates contour lines and tries to quantify, extremely clearly, what it means to "feel the form".
Mike Mattesi has a trilogy on proko that distills the essence of the book but honestly the book itself is a pretty easy read.

>>7963291
Oh I agree, the same criticism can be given to loomis and many other older books too. I just find it funny that someone thinks the language was too sophisticated or that the dialect had changed too much. The language is old fashioned, but hardly anything near indecipherable.
The biggest problem with the ye olde books is that they're often poor at explaining themselves, old language or not.

>>7963305
I actually haven't heard anyone really speak about this book, so I have no idea if it's any good or not. I especially haven't heard anyone speak of it in terms of it being an entry point for drawing. So call me dubious on this one.

>>7963316
>Typing new words hurt head! Type same words instead.
lmao.

>>7963330
I'm going to be frank with you, I'm not actually that anon. It's just some anon that happened to appear out of nowhere.

>>7963330
kys, SEAnigger

File: 1750410494314705.png (219 KB, 308x529)

219 KB PNG

Hello, /beg/ here. Been doing copies and watching youtube tutorials for months, made some progress but I'm still shit at the fundies, so I'll start doing books instead.

Summarising this thread for myself, I think I'll go: Keys to Life -> Cartoon Animation -> Drawing Manual Vilppu -> Perspective Drawing Handbook. I'll take notes and do all of the exercises in each. I'll also still try to do a copy of art I like here and there while trying to implement the fundies I'm learning from the books.

Can anyone see anything wrong with this path? Is this enough to reach the promised neverland called /int/?

Also, already started Keys to Life, here's first attempt at the first exercise (used a reference because didn't want to use my own feet).

>>7963787
I'm not sure about having Cartoon Animation after Keys to Life.
CA is a great book, but it seems you're going for a realistic style of drawing, so it might be a bit odd to suddenly have a solely cartooning book in the middle of your studies. I probably would have recommended it as the very first book in your line-up.

But hey, if you flipped through it and thought it looked good, go for it. I think half the reason to go through these books is because you think the drawings are good, and you want to learn from that particular author, even if you're re-treading some well trodden ground.

>>7963305
>Did I mention I worked at Disney? Yeah, I worked at Disney. You know, when I worked at Disney, I learned an analogy is useful to explain a concept by comparing it to a familiar experience, so think of drawing like driving a Ferrari. Did you you know I worked at Disney? Lie, I'm a Disney animator? Yeah, I was a trainee on Lion King. Yes, literally just a trainee on that one animation.

>>7963810
I still have a question. Why do you want me to skip the first chapter of CA?

>>7963832
It doesn't really matter, I just enjoy including an immaterial little tweak to suggested material to really make it seem like I'm in the know and elevate myself above the authors I'm suggesting.

>>7963810
>But hey, if you flipped through it and thought it looked good, go for it
Yeah I did. It's the most appealing to me. Also, from other skill learning, I know the best way to skyrocket motivation is to feel some success in the skill early. I won't be able to do anything realistic for quite a while, but I felt like I'd definitely be able to get to making appealing drawings from imagination quickly from Blair.

Also, funny that I mistyped Keys to Drawing and you just repeated it after me

>>7963787
>>7963810
Dafuq is Keys to Life?

>>7964328
The Quran

>>7963832
I've said no such thing. If I were to recommend a way of studying from any book, it's to slowly copy each drawing within to the best of your ability, whilst keeping the lesson just learned in mind. Beginning to end.
Others simply read through, do a few short studies and get a jist of things, and maybe do any assignments in the book (or none at all). Do what you think works.

>>7964313
>Yeah I did. It's the most appealing to me.
All good then.
>Also, funny that I mistyped Keys to Drawing and you just repeated it after me
Haha, I only recall that his book's are called 'key to_', he also has another one called 'keys to imagination' or some such, so it's fine.

>>7964332
>it's to slowly copy each drawing within to the best of your ability
Have you actually done this yourself?

>>7964337
Of course not. But listen to what I say not what I do.

>>7964337
I've done it for several books, including Cartoon Animation (though I had a thinner 50 or so page version). I'm doing it right now with Bridgman.
I'm not saying it's the best or most efficient method of studying an art book, there's likely an element of what works for you as an individual, but that's how I go about studying from these books.

>>7964339
Quit being a faggot.

>>7964341
Can I see tour works? I need to know if I'm going to the right direction here.

>>7964350
Your*

>>7964351
*You're

>>7964341
>still at Drawing Bridgman Twice phase
I fucking hate /beg/s larping as experts giving advice on /ic/.

>>7964365
Is it okay if I draw anatomy from actual 3d models likes the bones, muscles and such rather than books? I feel like that is the closest thing to drawing anatomy from life. As 3d software creates an illusion of reality.

>>7958191
Why are there are more good artists on average today, then?
Every time I see an amazing artist, they're under 20.

>>7957961
If this book taught you to draw cute anime girls instead of bald ugly bastards it would be universally hailed as the greatest how-to draw book of all time

>>7961925
Is scenery the same as environment? Thanks.

>>7964379
>Is it okay if I draw anatomy from actual 3d models likes the bones, muscles and such rather than books?
Yeah, or both
>I feel like that is the closest thing to drawing anatomy from life. As 3d software creates an illusion of reality.
It’s not the same process because you are looking at a flat plane. If you have two eyes you should draw forms from observation as often as you can in addition to studying flat reference.

Fun fact: cuphead was apparently inked by one woman.
There is a similar animated video game title itno the unwell that looks cool as hell! It matches the zany world of Felix the cat!

>>7967321
what's fun about that?

File: dionne quintuplets.jpg (122 KB, 512x389)

122 KB JPG

>>7966044
In his time, Loomis was most famous for painting lolis.

File: 9907145e8d19e5b26212885b2(...).jpg (275 KB, 601x856)

275 KB JPG

what do you think about this one

>>7962410
>>7962417
with these obscene prices, it's obviously out of print.
I respect that you're willing to pay but that money wouldn't go to him anyways if it's a used copy.
I think it's morally justified to view it online and free.

https://dn760104.eu.archive.org/0/items/Vilppu_Drawing_Manual.pdf/Vilppu_Drawing_Manual_text.pdf

>>7968891
I'm one of those freaks who insists on holding physical books in his hands.
By the way, what's the consensus on Burne Hogarth?

>>7969499
>Burne Hogarth
He is the superior one

>>7969505
What about Bridgman? Loomis? Vilppu? Hampton?

>>7968891
Google is bad now. But surely you can still use it to find the reprint >>7962422 .
Not everyone wants to sell on amazon.

>>7962422
Is there a way to get notified for reprints? 1000MXN Isnt that bad

>>7969600
Notified what? Just add the book to the cart and buy it. Then it will calculate the shipping to your shithole. Is it actually out of stock?

>>7969572
Better than all of them

File: lol.png (124 KB, 691x534)

124 KB PNG

>>7958062
>>7958059
this is hilarious

>>7962221
This is a very solid list, I’m missing some but the ones I did read and use were excellent, Robertson especially, even though /ic has a hate boner for him (because they’re beg crabs)

>>7974190
Ok that’s genuinely really funny. It’s right but the way it’s presented is so autistic I love it

File: 643564563456456.jpg (360 KB, 1400x1813)

360 KB JPG

>>7957961
unironically the best for any type of stylized illustration with HEROIC PROPORTIONS. and yes, even Stan Lee tells you to fucking drill those fucking boxes, cylinders, pyramids and other shapes before moving to the next bit with perspective etc: Full step by step method if you follow through with it. Not sure of the current state of youtube but he had his video tutorial series under the same book name where he walked you through some common shit from the book beginners wouldn't know about art from back then, great all around. (crying shame what happened to comic books.)

File: loomis.png (52 KB, 500x900)

52 KB PNG

>>7957961

>>7975471
kek the spiderman on the cover is even fucked up

>>7975471
>crying shame what happened to comic books
They still exist, they're thriving even, they just have cute half-dressed underage women now and come from Japan instead of America

>>7975471
all credit should go to John Buscema.

>>7975902
okay now pyw

>>7957961
The truth is that no resource will be ever beginner friendly, they cannot possible be the very first steps an artist can do, unlike something like programming where following a tutorial can indeed be the very first you ever do regarding that subject
The start is all about a person just fucking drawing a messing around until they build a subconscious base to build upon, it's not the book's job to teach you that, the same way sports resources take for granted you can walk

>>7975714
most current anime and manga output is trash, 2016-2018 was the cut off date for anything that was off the cuff "I'll just do it because I enjoy the idea of the story/character/theme and want to share this cool idea with others." instead of some weird commentary/author's slightly disguised fetish with low effort slop.

File: 1762799141415852.jpg (521 KB, 1920x871)

521 KB JPG

>>7975914

File: loomis-quick-proportions-clean.jpg (289 KB, 1237x889)

289 KB JPG

>>7959478
While Loomis dedicates a couple of pages to proportions, like others already showed, i find the rather "offhand" quick setup he shows a bit later more practical. Admittedly it's not that clear though.
Will Weston teaches this approach, together with the hand system.

Halfway point total figure gives crotch.
Top half divided into thirds(top of head to shoulders, shoulders to waist(bottom ribcage), waist to crotch.
Bottom half divided in half again gives bottom of the knee.

He gives more info like the position of the top of the front of the pelvis and how the head and neck are divided.

>>7975902
these are all aggressively bad except for loomis, and there's more to drawing reference than just anatomy books.

>>7975471
should i bother with the video tutorials?

>>7976281
>and there's more to drawing reference than just anatomy books.

Not really, Color, Lineweight, Lineart and composition are borderline irrelevant. And let's be honest here, if you can't draw a body you can't draw a car.