Figure drawing instructor a Hogarth naysayer

[Jovian M]

Recently, a guest instructor (for figure drawing) at my friend's school spent some time talking shit about Hogarth, for whatever reason, and saying that 'there were some muscles that Hogarth made up', or something along those lines. No one decided to say anything back, because the guy was pretty good, and they still learned from him, but dag. How would you CAers have reacted to an instructor bashing someone responsible for teaching (through his books or otherwise) so many?

Not gonna' say the name of the school or instructor.

[Anid Maro]

I've seen several people here post pretty much the same thing about Hogarth. The value of Hogarth is in his methodology for constructing the figure, however it is widely agreed that his actual anatomy was less than proper.

[Jovian M]

Well, it's little stylized, bubbly and the likes, but I can't see there having been entirely made up muscles.

[Anid Maro]

His "butterfly butt" is an oft cited example of faulty and even contrived anatomy. Here's a previous discussion (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=157303) about the value of Hogarth's books. For the record, I still like Hogarth but it is important to acknowledge the pits and downfalls of his work.

[Sphyzex_9]

Here we go again.

[DeadlyFreeze]

I don't think hogarths stuff is the best place but to disregard it is silly.

Opinions are like assholes everyone has one and they usually stink. At the end of the day you have to figure out the value of something for yourself.

[Derek the Usurper]

Why doesn't someone do a redline paintover of some Hogarth studies to show where he's going wrong.

[Crush]

That's funny, my anatomy teacher was actually a student of hogarth's :P

(Rey Bustos http://www.reybustos.com/ )

[armando]

Hogarth is okay, there was a time when I would have said it would be worthwhile to copy from him. His figures get some things right, but are missing a lot of important principles. I suppose it isn't a total loss to copy from him, but why settle for okay when you can have the real fuckin' deal? Why not copy the figures of Michelangelo, Leyendecker, Rockwell, Charlie Gibson, Joey Coll, or any other artist that you respect. Noone really wants to draw like Hogarth, the main reason beginners use his books is because they're so damn easy to find.

[Dizon]

The guy can draw though. No doubt about that.

[Vermis]

Noone really wants to draw like Hogarth, the main reason beginners use his books is because they're so damn easy to find.

I'm fond of Hogarth meself, but I have to agree! :D
That butterfly butt is just weird...

[Sebastard]

Hogarth is definitely a good source but i honestly have to say when it comes to pure anatomy i prefer the works of Hamm, Loomis and other artists. Hogarth isn't bad, it's just not a style i like. 'Bubbly' seems to be a good word for it.

Still, i love his book about wrinkles and folds in clothing and keep it next to my computer. He's a very good instructor in alot of ways and i think every artist has his/her weaknesses.

[Elwell]

How would you CAers have reacted to an instructor bashing someone responsible for teaching (through his books or otherwise) so many?

Probably like this...
http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=166787
http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=157303

[Kfeeras]

he's okay to practise drapery and proportions. and basic rhythms of the human figure

[Xeon_OND]

Hogarth is definitely a good source but i honestly have to say when it comes to pure anatomy i prefer the works of Hamm, Loomis and other artists. Hogarth isn't bad, it's just not a style i like. 'Bubbly' seems to be a good word for it.
Do you happen to have read any of Jack Hamm's book which I didn't know about? "Drawing the human head and figure" doesn't seem to be a serious book on anatomy / figure drawing. It would be good if he has an equivalent of Loomis' "Figure drawing for all it's worth".

[dashinvaine]

At first I thought you were talking about William Hogarth!

[Sebastard]

Do you happen to have read any of Jack Hamm's book which I didn't know about? "Drawing the human head and figure" doesn't seem to be a serious book on anatomy / figure drawing. It would be good if he has an equivalent of Loomis' "Figure drawing for all it's worth".

It's true that "Drawing the human head and figure" doesn't tell you "draw this, this and this and do it 300 times and you'll be good. It tells you pretty much "this is what the bodyparts look like, this is how they'll look in different positions/angles, now it's up to you to put them in poses."

In short - i was referring to the book you did. I don't think an aspiring artist should keep to 1-2 anatomy/figure drawing books but mix and mingle. I mix Loomis, Hamm and Bridgeman around quite alot and so far the approach has been pretty nice - for me, that is.

[Zazerzs]

ahh the Hogarth debate weeeeee.

He stylizes the human form in a way that works for him and the comic world. Its can be a decent learning tool for some, lots of people like it, but for others its just a slick mass of bubbly forms.

If its working for you then cool, use it, but don't think of it as an end all be all anatomy book..