Burne Hogarth Books

[JParrilla]

Hey guys Ive recently been doing so drawing from Hogarths Dynamic Figure Drawing. Im curious as to what principals Hogarth is exactly trying to get across? His drawings have a very specific style to them especially his shading. Ive been copying his drawings very precisely but Im starting to think that Im missing the point here. He draws very "bubbly" musculature.. if that makes any sense.. and it seems to me that its more of a book about surface anatomy than anything else. I feel like Im missing something and theres more to these books that Im not understanding. I HATE simply copying from a book when I dont know why Im doing it.. I also know that this is a useless practice. Can anyone help me understand what Burnes trying to say?

[CCThrom]

I used to think Hogarth was great... now I'm not so sure. For pure learning about anatomy, I now think the other "usual suspects" are better (you know who I mean... Loomis, Bridgeman, Peck, etc). What Hogarth does is reduce anatomical forms into kind of abstract/mechanical approximations. At the time I thought that was just what I needed, because it makes the forms and structures CLEAR. Later I realized he makes things "clear" but not necessarily "right".

Besides that, don't try to actually READ what he says... he'll tax even fans of convoluted Victorian prose... just take what you can from the diagrams and captions.

[Aphotic Phoenix]

Bleh, Hogarth...

Jenő Barcsay's "Anatomy for the Artist" has the clearest muscle illustration that I've seen. Unfortunately it lacks in some other respects such as proportion. If you can find this in the large original size I'd suggest grabbing it, as the newer version is a bit small.

Stephen Peck's "Atlas of Human Anatomy for the Artist" has very good bone illustration, but the muscle illustrations don't quite have enough contrast. He does include a lot of other really useful info however including different body types (fat vs emancipated, etc).

[Smarty]

Burne hogarth's books seem a little odd at first glance. After working fomr it for a while and then back to my drawings from imagination I noticed a big improvement in contour and forms. I think his drawings are exagerated (bulgy) so its easier to recall when you go back to doing a drawing. Just understate what was obviously their in Hogarth's book.

[J Wilson]

Look for Bridgman's books, they may be a lot closer to what you are looking for. Bridgman does a better job in my opinion of showing you the underlaying structure and purpose of the various muscle groups.

I've never been a fan of Hogarth's books. I agree his figures look strange, and the books themselves didn't seem as helpful as other books did (although I admit it's been years since I looked at his books, so maybe I missed stuff). Bridgman, for me, is when anatomy really started to make sense.

[PieterV]

I second Bridgman. I have had a few anatomy book where I used to do studies from. But it hasn't been untill a few months ago I started studying from Bridgman. It's been only since I've been doing the bridgman studies that I've had the feeling I was really starting to understand anatomy. Other books show you where the muscles are, Bridgman shows you HOW to draw those muscles.
And his books are dirt cheap and super easy to carry around, it's a sin not to pick them up imo.

The Barcsay book I own too. A bit confusing for a beginner I think, it was for me anyway. But anatomy can be very confusing at first, and this was my first anatomy book. I was doing some studies from the book a few days ago and it's nice to have a break from Bridgmans abstractions. I guess it's a good book if you already have a basic understanding of the musclegroups.

I'll keep my toughts about Hogarth to myself :)
I guess he's not all bad, Marko swears by him.

[JParrilla]

Thanks guys.. I actually do have all of Bridgmans books and I love them. They make the most sense to me by far. I just read some stuff about Hogarth so I thought I would take a look.. I dont know what I think about his books yet.

[JParrilla]

A bit off topic from my original post but I was wondering If you guys knew a good way to get a binded book like Bridgman onto individual sheets of paper so that I can lay the pages flat in order to study them. I hate flattening the books because it destroys the bindings and I wanna make sure I keep the books intact. Books are always being put out of print and it would suck if mine fell apart and I couldnt get another copy. I could photocopy the pages but the quality would probably suck

[Ghostbrush]

Bridgeman all the way, cant stress how much I have learnt in such a small space of time from that book!

it just seems to be that the way everything is drawn and exaggerated, means i remember it straight away from imagination...well almost i still learning of course :)

[Arshes Nei]

Hogarth is okay after learning more straightforward anatomy in my opinion. It's just that it works great for what he advertises which is "dynamic" but as others have said it doesn't necessarily mean correct. I personally find his figures too...rubbery.

Bridgman is great because of the following reasons. He's sketchy. You might think "I need something clear"! Well the thing to me is I do find it more exciting and get the juices flowing when everything isn't interpreted for you. Learning to sketch and getting things to read is critical in my opinion. If you don't have ideas you can't go back to because you have no idea what the hell you were drawing then that's a problem. Drawback is that..well his females aren't so great.

Peck was also mentioned as was Loomis. Loomis seems to fare much better than Bridgman in drawing the female form. Peck is good for structure and different forms, child, adult, fat, and skinny.

Gottfried Bammes is another one I'd recommend. His books are in pdf format online if you know where to look but they're in German. However, his insight on the figure is great.

[kev ferrara]

This topic has been covered a lot, and I get into it every time. The long and short of it is, Hogarth has written the only anatomy books in history for which no models were consulted. The entire book is stylizations based on ideas he had about physical movement while working on his Tarzan Sunday comic strip for a decade. If you are a fan of his artwork, your will appreciate that he is instructing you on its construction. Otherwise, Bridgman, Loomis, Bammes, Peck are, IMHO, better choices.

[kingshaj]

well said,
if you are looking for accurate anatomy he's is definitely the last place to look.
His perspective and gesture is often straight up weird. (not to mention odd bulbous heads)


but i still think if used sparingly and appropriately he has his place

hogarth is great for imparting the idea of weight and volume

anatomy its just not his forte at all. i think we would excuse alot of this if he had not put "anatomy" in the title of any of his books.
we might think of him as an interesting illustrator rather than a failed anatomist


-

[Wasker]

The entire book is stylizations based on ideas he had about physical movement while working on his Tarzan Sunday comic strip for a decade.

I thought most Bridgman sketches were done without reference aswell. I believe I read it somewhere on ca even. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

[Elwell]

I thought most Bridgman sketches were done without reference aswell. I believe I read it somewhere on ca even. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

You're wrong.

[dose]

Bridgman was well known for amazing students by cranking out a figure from his head in a couple minutes. The difference between him and Hogarth is that Bridgman was able to do this based on years of observation and analysis from life and the masters, whereas Hogarth skipped the observation part and created an interesting but heavily stylized method of portraying the figure that he developed over many years drawing a comic out of his head.

[surfandsnow]

I never really liked hogarth, but I read several of his books anyway assuming I could learn something without producing drawings like his. Some of the basic forms he uses for the body can be useful for construction but thats about it, if that is even any good. I also find it annoying that he calls all his books "dynamic" when in fact his rigid set of rules dosent allow for much.

One thing that Ive heard a few times from different sources is that ignoring bone structure can cause your figure to lose solidity and look rubbery. This seams to have happened to him, since he largely ignores the bones and his figures do have that loose, rubbery quality to them.

Anyway in a convent list form, I think hogarth has the following problems:

-Ignores the bones!!!(rubber)

-all the illustrations are from his imagination, so there is no proof to his methods, you just have to take his word for it.

-He teaches you HIS way to draw, not A way(your illustrations will look like his if you follow the book enough)

-Uses unflexiable often erroneous rules to illustrate the figure (remember the butterfly butt check, and all the other, "this always looks like this" stuff)

-questionable perspective

-awkward and often impossible poses

The exact moment I disregarded hogarth was when I saw someones drawing that looked "hogarthian" and of course discovered they had in fact studied hogarths books. To me this was proof that his books did little more than teach you to draw like him.

The one good aspect of hogarth is that he has brought to light the importance of bone structure and life studies.

Anyway thats pretty much my personal opinion on hogarth, beware.

[JParrilla]

how would you go about making sure that you dont adopt to much of a style based on your anatomy studies? Im always working from books like Bridgmans and Loomis and I always fear that I will slowly draw in their style. Is drawing from life a good way to be sure you will do your own thing? Since when you draw from life you are always doing it your own way since there is nothing between you and the subject.

[Arshes Nei]

how would you go about making sure that you dont adopt to much of a style based on your anatomy studies? Im always working from books like Bridgmans and Loomis and I always fear that I will slowly draw in their style. Is drawing from life a good way to be sure you will do your own thing? Since when you draw from life you are always doing it your own way since there is nothing between you and the subject.

Simple, you look at more than one artist for studying. You may copy their methods on one approach...then you take away the book or piece you're referencing from and draw from your memory or imagination. The less you look at one single item to reference from and draw out of your head after doing studies from reference, you'll start noticing your own preferences kick in.

[kingshaj]

Is drawing from life a good way to be sure you will do your own thing?

sure is,
but it would be a mistake to sleep on the books of the artists being talked about here.



-awkward and often impossible poses



but id skip this one....

[Strela]

Hogarth is great for a certain type of stylization. IMO, he has some very good ideas about forms. It's also worth noting that in terms of popularity he was far more successful than any of the other "usual suspects." A successful and vibrant stylization doesn't always mean anatomical correctness.

That said, I think Bridgman and Loomis are probably better to learn from. Seems to me that Hogarth's methods assume that you have some idea of the underlying structure first.

[kev ferrara]

It's also worth noting that in terms of popularity he was far more successful than any of the other "usual suspects.

Not sure what you mean by this or in what sense it might be true. Firstly, quality is often inversely proportional to popularity because getting good at selling takes time away from time otherwise spent getting good at making artwork. This is just one of the many reasons why populism is the antithesis of quality. Let's not confuse the issue. Quality information for painters is the only issue at stake here. If people want good information they seek it out, it doesn't seek them out. You'll notice Richard Schmid doesn't need to hawk his Alla Prima at the local bookshop.

[OmenSpirits]

Could never use Bridgman. Not fully rendered enough for me to get a decent understanding.

I use Peck and some Loomis in concert.

I tried Hogarth in the beginning, but it didn't 'click' for me.

Funny that Bargue was the one to push me forward. :)

[armando]

Could never use Bridgman. Not fully rendered enough for me to get a decent understanding.


I didn't get Bridgman at first either, copied through all his books with close to zero results. It's unfortunate that so many beginners are encouraged to seek him out without proper preparation. Now that I have a better understanding of fundamentals, which I got from other sources, I can easily see what he's trying to do, it's like watching an old out of shape dancer who knows the principles behind the moves yet can't pull them off with grace anymore. You really need to make the little box mannequin that he describes in "Life Drawing". Everything in there literally builds off of that. If you do that, and understand what he's trying to show in the examples, and pose the mannequin for each example, the results are powerful. I still think his folds book sucks, and the heads book is also pretty weak since what's in that is covered in a few pages in Life Drawing.
I think Hogarth has some useful tips, like treating clothing as a second skin that responds to the 4 basic actions of the body, S curve for profile legs, B shape for frontal legs, and Marko and KChen prove that it is possible to adopt some of his techniques. It's possible to copy Bridgman's books several times and find new things, you'll realize the meaning of a tiny line that you originally overlooked, but it's not worthwhile to go through Hogarth multiple times. Hogarth's drawings tend to be overworked, a lot of his shading is meaningless decoration and not worth copying, because it doesn't describe form or spatial orientation. Contrast that with Bridgman's very utilitarian style. However I like how he puts so much stress on outline and silhouette, so you can count the muscles on the contours, and each muscle is basically a kind of oval, so it's possible to create a simplified sort of flat paper figure, Bammes has a similar exercise.


One thing that Ive heard a few times from different sources is that ignoring bone structure can cause your figure to lose solidity and look rubbery. This seams to have happened to him, since he largely ignores the bones and his figures do have that loose, rubbery quality to them.


Hogarth has some pretty good illustrations of the bones in the hand, and how that fits into the wrist. What causes the rubberiness of his figures is the excessive use of curved lines, and bending the arms and legs at 90 degree angles. Incidents of wierd foreshortening are probably caused by using stencils.

[Collywobbles]

I didn't get Bridgman at first either, copied through all his books with close to zero results. It's unfortunate that so many beginners are encouraged to seek him out without proper preparation. Now that I have a better understanding of fundamentals, which I got from other sources, I can easily see what he's trying to do, it's like watching an old out of shape dancer who knows the principles behind the moves yet can't pull them off with grace anymore.

I hear that a lot, I have always suggested studying Loomis first or at least concurrent with Bridgman. I had one of his books as a kid and didn't get much out of it because I was trying to copy, I only actually started learning after analysis of my own weaknesses. I would avoid Hogarth, maybe when you have the knowledge to analyze what he is doing it might be helpful but time could be better spent elsewhere. It took multiple artists and books to attain some level of competency for me and I still try to find new books every day.

Also throw in some perspective study in the beginning, that will help your anatomy and understanding of Bridgman especially. It's not boring, I promise.

[JParrilla]

ya perspective is something ive been neglecting because it seems so technical. but I know i have to do it so im gonna start

[jakesworthy]

ya perspective is something ive been neglecting because it seems so technical. but I know i have to do it so im gonna start

What are some good books on perspective?

[armando]

Ernest Norling's "Perspective Made Easy" is one of the best, even Loomis recommends it, so you know it's got to be good.

[Portus]

I second Ernest Norling's book.

[burrito]

I recently finished studying Burne Hogarth's Dynamic Figure Drawing by methodically copying every image from the book. It took me about a year at an hour a day. I also have pursued life drawing extensively within the same period.

The most important thing I got from Hogarth is the "angular range" that his lines encouraged in my own hand by drawing their exaggerated curvature. Another thing I got was his "break points" that seem to introduce interesting detail to what would otherwise be a more direct way of drawing a line.

Basically, what I learned from Hogarth is a greater confidence of line, without sacrificing subtlety.

[Pezz]

Bammes + consulting my figure drawing teacher from a year and a half ago has been a godsend for me, personally. I've been meaning to get ahold of the Bridgeman books, I'm sure they are great.

[Portus]

This is all you need! Maybe the Loomis books but they are out of print and there's no plans as far as I know to reprint them. Willy Pogany is also good but not as good as Loomis books. I would skip Hogarth's books, way too stylised.

http://www.vulomedia.com/images/97150IMG_3991.jpg

[Jasonwclark]

The long and short of it is, Hogarth has written the only anatomy books in history for which no models were consulted. The entire book is stylizations based on ideas he had about physical movement while working on his Tarzan Sunday comic strip for a decade. If you are a fan of his artwork, your will appreciate that he is instructing you on its construction. Otherwise, Bridgman, Loomis, Bammes, Peck are, IMHO, better choices.

I think a Hogarth thread every now and again is probably a good thing. Since it always brings up those other names as well.

As a relative neophyte myself, I think that Bridgman offers the most compelling and easy to remember simplifications of the anatomy. The only difficulty I have with him is that it’s sometimes hard to see how all the discrete elements come together in the finalized figure. It takes a while before you start to realize that he’s not giving you building blocks to work with, but showing you how to envisage the building blocks for yourself, when you’re looking at that part of the body. His constructive anatomy also seems to lend itself more towards the masculine figure. Loomis picks up the slack there though, since all his stuff is excellent for that mid century ideal of feminine beauty. He also encourages the use of a camera as a tool for study, which is pretty cool, and shows positive examples of how it can be used to aid a drawing. He doesn’t give you the detailed anatomy breakdown that Bridgman provides, but shows quality examples of how that information can be translated into a more general process of picture making. I think there’s a strong reason why those two guys are always recommended together, because the books round each other out to so well. Both place a strong emphasis on observing and respecting the model, and studying all types of different figures to get a better understanding of the info in their books. It’s pretty much the same deal with Bammes. Pecks Atlas is killer. Its extremely well detailed, almost like a medical book and a drawing book fused together, and it has the best grizzled old dudes of the bunch. He also throws out a lot of solid quotations.

Hogarth seems to have a different approach from the others mentioned above. He offers some simple building blocks up front, and then shows you how he connected and exaggerated them in different ways for effect. The books don’t dwell on the model or the science, but instead offer suggestions on how to draw figures principally from the imagination. It’s intentionally cartoonish, and all the books have that aesthetic, but he does give you an interesting window into the shorthand techniques that he used for his own work. There are a lot of people, especially animators, cartoonists, and anyone who has to crank out a lot of drawings from their head, who will use simplification techniques similar to Hogarth’s. They don’t look like Hogarth’s though, because whenever you do work like that for a long time, your own signature and eccentricities always show through in the drawing. Following his examples line for line like you do with Bridgman probably isn’t the best way to use the books though. Even the dynamic drapery one, which has that quasi-classical rendered feel, is still showing you Hogarth cartoons at bedrock. The goofy faces and the wild musculature make more sense when you consider his background and the kind of stuff he was aiming for. I don’t think I’ve ever been floored by anything in Hogarth’s anatomy though, like I have with Gray’s Atlas or Peck’s.

Here this one is good for the comic relief. :)

667205

To show how he put his principles into practice.

667206

[setsuna801]

for me Burne hogarth book is good with the complement of another book. I love his book because he show you how to break the body shape and anatomy into geometrical form which are easier for shading if you apply this to more proportionned anatomy like pecks, bridgment or any other book, it will work very well, his portrai are very well break down to and it as a lot of foreshortening and nice hands gestures. I don't know bridgman but I would like to try. I have the peck book and the all about technique of the anatomy for the artist which are great books

[kingshaj]

how many people out there use medical or actual anatomy resources to inform their art?

i own most of the books mentioned here, as im sure most of us do,...love'em

but im always left wanting more, "the real thing", if you will,

i have several medical anatomy books that are sooper helpfull, but the muscular system and other structural systems are to briefly covered,
and the things weigh a ton.

does anyone know of any good ones or web resources perhaps?

[Flake]

There's a free copy of Grays Anatomy on Bartleby if that's any use to you.
http://www.bartleby.com/107/

[SoufMeng]

I think i see what you mean, Kingshaj.
Most artists we study anatomy from made selections and stylisations of what they observed on the model and when its as well done as Bridgman did e.g its just great. But at a more advanced stage and if one has the urge to i think its good to take some distance from those and look at the real thing and see what it is you want to say about the human body and how.

Anyway concerning anatomy books made by artists for artists, i think Bammes' Der Nackte Mensch is pure gold. AFAIK the text is only available in german (maybe not for long (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=153867)) but trust me the plates alone are worth it. He has a great concern for getting the point across and his drawing skills are outstanding IMO. Plus each body part is further illustrated by photographs of models.

Someone also posted a link to Paul Richer's anatomy book here at CA.
It was 4 years ago but the link is still working. Richer was an anatomist, physiologist as well as a draughtsman so its a pretty comprehensive book on the topic. Link (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=51779)

And if you want the *real* real thing then go here (http://anatomy.mcgraw-hill.com/demo/apr.html).
Its i think one of the "cleanest" real body available online for study i can think of.
A good exercice with that one is to draw a body part with all layers turned off, so just the bones and then proceed to add layers one by one and draw the changes at each layer from bone to skin.

Hope this helps.



I'll keep my toughts about Hogarth to myself :)

Ditto!

[kingshaj]

S.M.

thanks for the link!

very interesting

[JS Neo]

I have seen many great artist say that the Vanderpoel's book is really good. Was thinking of getting it but like to hear what people say abt it.

[CCThrom]

Kingshaj... this is a medical anatomy book that I've used in the past

http://www.amazon.com/Hollinsheads-Functional-Anatomy-Limbs-Back/dp/1416049800/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242050497&sr=1-1

[Marko Djurdjevic]

The reason I love and recommend Hogarth is not because of his ability to create realistic anatomy. Of course not. But what he does give you is a guideline that leaves room for your own imagination. Something that you can layer over and on top of the foundation that you're getting from studying him. Also, another thing that makes Hogarth special to me is his courage for daring poses and outrageous perspectives. I find that he gives you enough room to play with the human body as you like and wish and I think that it's detrimental to our own progression that we lose the fear of complicated stuff. That being said, realism can be easily plastered over a skillful foundational drawing. That part needs observational skills and not an anatomy book.


Cheers

M

[Jason Manley]

I agree with Marko.

The combination of bridgeman and hogarth is exactly what enables most concept folks to create the figure from imagination.

[dose]

That last link is a great resource, S.M. Thanks for posting.

[JParrilla]

The reason I love and recommend Hogarth is not because of his ability to create realistic anatomy. Of course not. But what he does give you is a guideline that leaves room for your own imagination. Something that you can layer over and on top of the foundation that you're getting from studying him. Also, another thing that makes Hogarth special to me is his courage for daring poses and outrageous perspectives. I find that he gives you enough room to play with the human body as you like and wish and I think that it's detrimental to our own progression that we lose the fear of complicated stuff. That being said, realism can be easily plastered over a skillful foundational drawing. That part needs observational skills and not an anatomy book.


Cheers

M

Ya I can see what Marko is saying. As long as you dont take Hogarths drawings as the only way to draw anatomy, it seems like you can take a lot from his stuff. He does some really extreme foreshortening and some crazy perspective.. stuff that comic book artists use so frequently. If you go into Hogarths books knowing that hes not so realistic and you need to put your own realism to his poses.. it seems like you can get good info from him.

[Dorkthrone]

The reason I love and recommend Hogarth is not because of his ability to create realistic anatomy. Of course not. But what he does give you is a guideline that leaves room for your own imagination. Something that you can layer over and on top of the foundation that you're getting from studying him. Also, another thing that makes Hogarth special to me is his courage for daring poses and outrageous perspectives. I find that he gives you enough room to play with the human body as you like and wish and I think that it's detrimental to our own progression that we lose the fear of complicated stuff. That being said, realism can be easily plastered over a skillful foundational drawing. That part needs observational skills and not an anatomy book.


Cheers

M
http://www.gifbin.com/bin/1233928590_citizen%20kane%20clapping.gif
Oh, and Der Nackte Mensch is fantastic.

[Portus]

Here's some samples from Vanderpoel's book:
http://www.vulomedia.com/thumbs/38093Untitled1.jpg (http://www.vulomedia.com/viewer.php?id=38093Untitled1.jpg) http://www.vulomedia.com/thumbs/12616Untitled2.jpg (http://www.vulomedia.com/viewer.php?id=12616Untitled2.jpg) http://www.vulomedia.com/thumbs/18283Untitled3.jpg (http://www.vulomedia.com/viewer.php?id=18283Untitled3.jpg) http://www.vulomedia.com/thumbs/13382Untitled4.jpg (http://www.vulomedia.com/viewer.php?id=13382Untitled4.jpg)

While I was at it I've also scanned some pages from Willy Pogany's book:
http://www.vulomedia.com/thumbs/69865Untitled10.jpg (http://www.vulomedia.com/viewer.php?id=69865Untitled10.jpg) http://www.vulomedia.com/thumbs/58345Untitled9.jpg (http://www.vulomedia.com/viewer.php?id=58345Untitled9.jpg) http://www.vulomedia.com/thumbs/33107Untitled8.jpg (http://www.vulomedia.com/viewer.php?id=33107Untitled8.jpg) http://www.vulomedia.com/thumbs/51596Untitled5.jpg (http://www.vulomedia.com/viewer.php?id=51596Untitled5.jpg) http://www.vulomedia.com/thumbs/23909Untitled6.jpg (http://www.vulomedia.com/viewer.php?id=23909Untitled6.jpg) http://www.vulomedia.com/thumbs/60205Untitled7.jpg (http://www.vulomedia.com/viewer.php?id=60205Untitled7.jpg)