[turnip]

I used to learn from his books years ago...now all of a sudden everybody online is demanding him, scanned artwork, archives...etc.

Whats up with that?

[Ian Jones]

Not another Loomis thread!

You have contributed to the disease I'm afraid. The more you mention him the more the trend grows. A new wave of ppl are discovering him, thats why you see it everywhere.

LOL

[turnip]

heh sorry to bring up another thread, I'm contributing to something which annoys myself...
but all you see is LOOMIS LOOMIS LOOMIS LOOMIS!!!!!! in forums
There are plenty of other great figure artists too! >_o

[James Bradford]

Loomis books is about the only anatomy books out there on the internet, for free. Pdf's, scanned pages, etc. You can't find that with Hogarth and the like.

[Lunatique]

1)It's free, and people love that--especially young aspiring artists with no $.

2)they are rare and out of print for decades. They still are.

3)Loomis was one of the best art teachers in the world.

4)Loomis makes Hogarth look like a clumsy freak.

I wish I had Loomis when I first started drawing seriously. But, nothing was available, so I had to grow up on Jack Hamm and Hogarth(yuck).

[Gort]

Whoa Luna - you don't like Hogarth??

I recall back in college someone bringing in this "awesome book" on dynamic life drawing. My professor took one look at the cover and sighed; he then proceeded to lecture why Hogarth was not a good example. His recommendations for learning (outside of the studio) were Robert Beverly Hale and Nathan Goldstien
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0139238638/qid=1025180064/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-5069695-8951163

[elam]

I took an "Anatomy for Artist" class one year and we used Hale's 'Lessons from the Masters' book as reference.
I don't think Hale was a working artist.
I think he was a lecturer.
All we did was watch videos of Hale talking about other peoples work. zzzzzz.

Loomis is good, but so is Jack Hamm. Very similar, IMO.

I like Hogarth as well. He may not be as talented as Loomis was, but he has some excellent material to study from.

[burn0ut]

look into vilppu, and err cant remember the other dudes name :/

edit, here's his webpage http://www.vilppustudio.com

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: burn0ut ]

[bearsclover]

Hey man, don't go dissin' Hogarth. He was one of my favorite teachers at Otis (lo, so many years ago...). He has a distinctive style, and certainly, not every artists should want to have the same style. But Hogarth knew his stuff. He was amazing. I learned so much from him. So don't you go giving Mr. Hogarth any disrespect!

That said, I always loved Loomis. His style is so lovely, and his writing was so friendly and helpful. I wish all his books were back in print. I don't understand why they are not. He deserves all the popularity he's getting. Before I even knew that he was the big craze on the Internet, I always recommended him (on my online tutorials). Hey! Maybe I helped start the trend!

[atomicmonkey]

Ian Jones is right... there's a lot of us who had never seen a Loomis book before they started to appear on the internet. They were never on the book shelves at the store, or on amazon.com, or anything like that... Now that they are appearing (and for free), everyone wants them. He teaches not only how to draw things accurately, but attractively as well. His drawings have a lot of appeal in them, which is something that many people find lacking in Hogarth's books.

Speaking of Hogarth, why all the bad talk? I personally feel his drawings are awesome, they have a really powerful look to them. To call him a 'clumsy freak' or his work 'ugly' is to disrespect a man who is not only a master of the human figure, but to many one of the fathers of the traditional comic book style artwork.

But in all honesty, I hope everyone that is desperately trying to get these Loomis books remember the other teachers out there. Take in as much as you can. Read Loomis, read Hogarth... read Villpu, Vanderpoel, Bridgeman, Hamm, Goldstein... and there's plenty more. You'll probably learn something different from all of them, and in addition to that, avoid copying a single one's style.

[mza]

ok, I'm going to get slammed, but I can't keep my trap shut on this one. I agree with Luna.

What Thomas Kinkade and Bob Ross is to the painting world is what Hogarth is to drawing.
IMHO.

[bearsclover]

quote

Quote:

Take in as much as you can. Read Loomis, read Hogarth... read Villpu, Vanderpoel, Bridgeman, Hamm, Goldstein... and there's plenty more. You'll probably learn something different from all of them, and in addition to that, avoid copying a single one's style.

Exactly. I took many anatomy and figure drawing classes, from teachers with completely different outlooks. One teacher had a "weird" (to me) way of drawing the figure, and I confess that I balked at learning his style. But I told myself, "Hey, you're here, learn what you can from him." And this is what the teacher himself said (his name was LaManna, I believe). And, lo and behold, I did come away with some new insights because of that class. You just never know what you might learn.

Mr. Hogarth does have a dynamic and distinctive style, but I haven't tried to emulate him in everything (especially in the faces). But damn�he was SO good. He was a wonderful lecturer, had some interesting insights, and it was a delight to see him draw. I learned a lot from his "Dynamic Figure Drawing" book, before I even took his classes. He has definitely been a positive influence, both in print, and in person.

But there are so many more. Loomis, Louise Gordon, Peck, Hamm, and on and on. Learn from all of these people!

[bearsclover]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mza:
What Thomas Kinkade and Bob Ross is to the painting world is what Hogarth is to drawing.
IMHO.

---

A lot of "big name" illustrators, comic book artists and many other excellent artists came out of the woodwork to attend Hogarth's classes at Otis. I am sure they would beg to differ with you.

[Vhy]

Hogarth understood structure, but tended to draw too much detail for my tastes.

If you want an instructional book with illustrations that are inspiring the Robert Beveryly Hale books have a lot of great drawings by Raphael, Rembrandt, Rubens, etc. many of which I have not seen elsewhere. He is a great teacher too.

Loomis is both good and free, but if you can afford to, buy additional books.

[Oblagon]

he used nice fm models. he will alway be popular.

[Anthony]

Hey hey, if I find something ugly, I find it ugly-the guy's talented but I still think his drawings are unattractive.

[roundeye]

you have to eventually unlearn hogarth if you actually look at it too long. best not to look at his shit in the first place. hey! i was young. as the best of us were once.

[nickname88]

what about bridgeman. jim lee the comic artist suggested his book to me. what do you guys think of him. I just bought his book off amazon.com

[Vhy]

If you question things from the start it's hard to learn bad habits.

[Lunatique]

elam- Jack Hamm helped me immensely. I would never bash Jack. He filled the void left by Loomis, except he didn't get quite as deep in his teachings. His were more like an overview and with some important points, where Loomis teaches the core and the essence of ALL aspects of being an artist.

atomicmonkey - Exactly. I can't tell you how many good artists I've seen that can draw/paint everything so well, but when it comes to depicting aesthetically pleasing/beautiful humans, they fall flat on their faces.

Loomis did stuff that was ELEGANT. Hogarth might be knowledgeable in the structure of of human anatomy, but his super-stylized work can be very misleading for young artists with no experience. I can't tell you how many bad comic book artists I've seen that had that "I learned my anatomy from Hogarth" look. Lots of unrealistic bulging muscles and horrible cheesy poses.

I wouldn't suggest Hogarth to a budding artist, as novice artists don't usually know how to distinguish style from knowlege. They don't understand that Hogarth exaggerates the form for better visibility and clarity, but they shouldn't FOLLOW his style. This is where Loomis shines. His teaching and artistic style contains knowlege too, but SANS the heavily stylized exaggeration--thus is at a lower risk for misleading young artists.

bearsclover- I think the big names flocked to him becasue they KNOW more experienced artists tend to get more out of Hogarth, as they won't be easily mislead as younger learning artists do by his exaggerated style. I bet you if Loomis was alive, these big names would flock to him instead.

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Lunatique ]

[bearsclover]

quote

Quote:

bearsclover- I think the big names flocked to him becasue they KNOW more experienced artists tend to get more out of Hogarth, as they won't be easily mislead as younger learning artists do by his exaggerated style. I bet you if Loomis was alive, these big names would flock to him instead.

Not instead�in addition to Hogarth. Loomis is wonderful, Hogarth is wonderful. In different ways. Room for both. Why not attend both classes? No reason not to.

I saw how Hogarth was in class�he was well worth listening to. Opinionated, I didn't always agree with him (nor did everyone else) but his classes were definitely worth the time. I doubt that would change if Loomis were still alive and teaching.

And, you are right, Hogarth is not for newbies�a solid foundation in anatomy and Life Drawing is important. I think I did well in his class because I had already studied Anatomy and Life Drawing (lots of Life Drawing! ). I had studied from other excellent teachers prior to Hogarth, and I went on to learn from others after him. As it should be.

[Anthony]

Even as an ignorant High Schooler I didn't like Hogarth(while my buddies gobbled him up). I don't like ugly drawings :]

[Gort]

Lunatique -

quote

Quote:

Hogarth might be knowledgeable in the structure of...human anatomy, but his super-stylized work can be very misleading for young artists with no experience.

That is the exact argument I was presented with from my instructor in college; Hogarth's work is more structural and arguably doesn't place an emphasis on the subtle nuances of life studies. Now that isn't to say he doesn't know anything, beause it's obvious to us that he does - I'm not bashing him here. I agree that perhaps his work is better left to advanced students - students that have a broader grasp of life drawing / painting; they can therefore see and use him as a "dynamically" structural reference.

[James Bradford]

Here is a quote from Ron Lemen, I find it to be very accurate concerning Hogarth;

"I would tend to stray away from the Hogarth books, only because what he does is purely inventive, not using real models or anything for his basis of structure. As a result, his images tend to be a bit too sinuey, rubber like, and just not quite right."

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: JamesBradford ]

[Lunatique]

bearsclover-- that reminds me of the experience I had with a big name figure drawing teacher(damn, can't remember his name). He gets hired by big studios like Disney to teach their animators and give workshops, so he is supposed to be like a God or something.

Anyway, 3DO hired him to come and do a few weekend workshops with the staff artists. I attended one session and didn't go back. The man was like a sales person, trying so hard to push his books on us, and I didn't even like his style at all. He is one of those exaggeration guys, and I just didn't have much interest in that style. He would constantly tell me to "stop painting with your charcoal and just DRAW" with it. He wanted me to not draw the model in fornt of me, but merely using the model's pose and do my anatomy drawing, showing all the muscles that WASN'T THERE ON THE MODEL. I told him I admired the way Sargent did his work, and he told me, "Well, that's not how I work, and in my workshop, you do it my way."

All his figures looked the same, just like the way Hogarth's figures looked the same. It's because they belong to the "I force the anatomy on my drawings regardless of what the model in front of me looks like. I'm sure his way of working is great for the cartoony animators though. Just not my cup of tea.

[jr]

james mcmullin?

[bearsclover]

quote:

---

I attended one session and didn't go back. The man was like a sales person, trying so hard to push his books on us, and I didn't even like his style at all. He is one of those exaggeration guys, and I just didn't have much interest in that style. He would constantly tell me to "stop painting with your charcoal and just DRAW" with it. He wanted me to not draw the model in fornt of me, but merely using the model's pose and do my anatomy drawing, showing all the muscles that WASN'T THERE ON THE MODEL. I told him I admired the way Sargent did his work, and he told me, "Well, that's not how I work, and in my workshop, you do it my way."

---

That sounds obnoxious, and not in any way like any classes I attended, or any teachers I had.

Another figure drawing teacher I had (LaManna) could be a bit strident, but his work was actually very nice. And we drew from the model, and referred to the model with LaManna. His technique was a bit ... weird, is all. But I forced myself to stick it out, and I don't regret it. He had something to offer me, after all.

Hogarth's class was not like what you described either, at all. He was such a legend already, he didn't need to hawk his books. We also worked from models, and he had us refer to the models a lot. My drawings from his class do not look like his work, they looked like my own.

He did do lectures (about the hand, the head, etc.) and the drawings had the typical Hogarth look�but that was what we expected. NONE of us came out of that class with cookie-cutter "Hogarth-esque" drawing styles. He didn't expect that from us. He tried to help us get better, but didn't expect us to completely re-invent out style to adhere to what he preferred.

[Lunatique]

Does Hogarth work in any other style at all? I'm too lazy to do a search on him.

[MadSamoan]

Lunatique: That might be Glen Vilppu you're referring to.

[Xysryc]

I prefer Loomis. I have nearly all the Hogarth books and I have to say the book about light and shade is quite useful, but he has nearly only drawn men in contrast to Loomis and I am male, you know!

In addition to that the drawings in the Loomis book are easier to understand. There is not so many detail as in the Hogarth books and due to that it is easier to learn from Loomis.

That's the way I see the whole problem.