What is "block form"?

[redpandafire]

I'm reading through the Loomis figure drawing book and its going well up until block form. The explanations are not clear and I don't understand what I'm supposed to do with his pictures. He just says "your method is as good as mine" but clearly its nothing close to his.

How do I make block forms? Where do I start?

P.S. I tried to do a search on this, but I cant get the forum search engine to find posts containing BOTH search terms. I tried google search but alas there are a bunch of threads that talk about this and I am far far far too noob to know which ones.

Thanks!

[Divine Oblivion]

Now, I actually didn't read too much of Loomis (I just studied the art.) But I think what he's referring to, is the use of using "blocks" to build up the figure. I'm going off the assumption you're reading Figure Drawing For All It's Worth.

What he means is, using shapes to build up the human figure. If you could clarify what bit you're at, I could probably help you better.

[Line]

What is generally meant by 'blocking in' is the mental simplification of form into big basic volumes which are then translated into 2d shapes on your drawing surface.

When Loomis writes that your way is as good as his, he means that you might choose to simplify a form in a particular way, in a particular 'blocky' volume, which may look different than his 'blocky' volume. There is no 'right' one.

Generally though, form has some basic planes, simplified versions of the surfaces of forms, that may suggest a particular block in or even be your basic block in.

Check this out http://www.freedomofteach.com/products/artist_busts/bust_flesh_torso

Number 2 is a block-in and 3 is the final detailed version. You can start with something simpler and as you draw it, you break the 'block-in' into smaller planes, like a sculpture, till you get to the smoothness and detail you want.

[redpandafire]

While I was studying Loomis, I was able to follow his methods. They were all very clear and methodical. His skeletons made sense because they were based on the human skeleton. His muscle work made sense, again because of human reference.

But as soon as I got to block form, it started making little sense. I was supposed to take a 12 inch wood mannequin, bend it into a pose, then mold out the human form onto that dummy. But the problem is, there is terrible little information on a mannequin. How am I supposed to know how to use when, when the entire (and complicated) plane of the stomach is reduced to a ball and flat surface??

All the muscles of the thigh, reduced to a tube. All the muscles of the arms, two tubes and a ball. Now I'm told to recreate what was lost. I'm not able to visualize all that data!!!!

Here, I'll attach what I would do with a typical mannequin. The mannequin is drawn from reference. But the block form is entirely GUESSING. Which drives me CRAZY.

[redpandafire]

What is generally meant by 'blocking in' is the mental simplification of form into big basic volumes which are then translated into 2d shapes on your drawing surface.

When Loomis writes that your way is as good as his, he means that you might choose to simplify a form in a particular way, in a particular 'blocky' volume, which may look different than his 'blocky' volume. There is no 'right' one.

Generally though, form has some basic planes, simplified versions of the surfaces of forms, that may suggest a particular block in or even be your basic block in.

Check this out http://www.freedomofteach.com/products/artist_busts/bust_flesh_torso

So you mean I have to work from something complicated, like a model or photo reference, and then break it down to simple blocks and planes? I been doing the exact opposite!!! Thanks for clearing that up!

Also, those busts are beautiful, but I would have to save up for a while to get them. I also want those full model models they have, but they're also quite expensive... Do you own them?

[dose]

If you're familiar with the concept of the bounding box in 3D graphics, it's quite similar. Look up the concept if you're unfamiliar. Here are some jpegs that illustrate the concept in 3D graphics and in drawing:

http://www.rustycode.com/matt/plan_10_26_06/ConstructorBoundingBox.jpg
http://www.shadecamp.net/w/images/e/ea/User22-002.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/BoundingBox.jpg
http://img.ffffound.com/static-data/assets/6/07de0a6d15f6ef87199c228b5ca25612ab7b74c5_m.jpg

It's a box that defines the orientation of a given mass in space-which way is it facing? Generally, the mass will fit inside this box, though when drawing you don't have to be so precise. And you don't have to limit yourself to just boxes, though they are especially useful because they clearly define the front, side, and top of each form. You also don't have to be quite so literal as 3D programs are, or copy any particular configuration of which boxes you draw for which forms. You develop your own configuration, which forms a sort of mannequin or figure shorthand that evolves with your understanding of the skeleton and muscle masses. This is what Loomis means by "your method is as good as mine". There's nothing set- it's whatever helps you get the job done.

It's also worth noting that with enough experience you might not literally draw these boxes out every time- especially in simple poses where the orientation of the masses is clear.

Hope this helps

Tim

[Line]

No I don't have any of those products neither was I suggesting you get one.

Most of the objects you'll be trying to create may have a complex surface. What you
should do is simplify them to the absolute minimum of tones and planes you require to show
them on your 2d surface.

An analogy could be the drawing of a complex curve as a series of straight lines. They
define the overall shape, size and placement of the curve you are trying to show on your
paper. Then you go back to the curve and slowly smoothen it out by subdividing it into
smaller straight lines or immediately into a curve.

That's what you do with 3d forms. You take an object like a head and simplify it into say
a box. Then you start 'cutting' it into smaller geometric shapes that correpsond slowly to
the volume you are trying to represent.

That's the general idea behind 'blocking-in'. It's not the only way, it just helps
you manage all the information you are working with.

[Elwell]

Learning to conceptualize things in terms of planes is an important step in being able to create form on a two-dimensional surface. You should start out by working from observation, trying to break things down to simpler block shapes, as Loomis talks about. You can then use that knowledge to work backwards, creating things from your head based on their geometric structure.
When we work from life, we get the planes from the light: when we work from imagination, we get the light from the planes.

[Chris Bennett]

When we work from life, we get the planes from the light: when we work from imagination, we get the light from the planes.

Hey, I like that. Not true in all cases, but I like it a lot!

[redpandafire]

After getting all the great advice, I'm embarassed to say I STILL don't get it. I tried thinking in terms of bounding box, but that only gives me a rough idea of the direction of the face.

I tried creating my own geometries and divisions but they all look like crap. I tried thinking in terms of polygons but again, it looks worse the harder I try.

Something is just not clicking!

I tried hard to think like I was using 3DS max, but its not the same. In Max I can tumble the viewport and get an amazing sense of the space around the shape. On paper, I just see lines, lines and more lines.

This is one of those times where its true when I say "if only I could WATCH somebody draw their block form, I KNOW I can get it." Because right now I may as well be drawing with invisible ink. None of it is guided by what I'm learning.

Here's what I mean: http://i768.photobucket.com/albums/xx325/redpandafire/161854.jpg

[Divine Oblivion]

After getting all the great advice, I'm embarassed to say I STILL don't get it. I tried thinking in terms of bounding box, but that only gives me a rough idea of the direction of the face.

I tried creating my own geometries and divisions but they all look like crap. I tried thinking in terms of polygons but again, it looks worse the harder I try.

Something is just not clicking!

I tried hard to think like I was using 3DS max, but its not the same. In Max I can tumble the viewport and get an amazing sense of the space around the shape. On paper, I just see lines, lines and more lines.

This is one of those times where its true when I say "if only I could WATCH somebody draw their block form, I KNOW I can get it." Because right now I may as well be drawing with invisible ink. None of it is guided by what I'm learning.

Here's what I mean: http://i768.photobucket.com/albums/xx325/redpandafire/161854.jpg

Now, I never actually implemented this in my study (Which I should probably -do-...) so I'm not too sure if I can be of good help. What you have so far is good, and actually looks just fine. Like.. here, let me sketch something up real fast.

Okay, this is a three minute sketch with some shadows slapped on. It's not refined, there are probably several proportional and anatomy mistakes (I hope not! :D) but this is the best I could give in terms of showing a "blocked in" sketch. From here, I'd continue to refine the forms until I got something that looked less like a pile of flat-planed shapes and more or less like a 3D representation of a woman.

Blocking in shouldn't be overly complex, and more or less look like the example Line gave. It's meant to be a loose interpretation of form, using flat planes to identify where light hits a surface, and where the shadows will lie in relation to the light.

I sincerely hope this makes sense and I'm not just confusing you more, RedPandaFire.

[redpandafire]

I sincerely hope this makes sense and I'm not just confusing you more, RedPandaFire.

Your explanations made quite a lot of sense. I was overcomplicating things trying to imagine a 3D studio viewport in my head and then adding lights, etc.

In fact I re-read the entire section again about 3 times, and did some drawings trying to mimic what he was saying. Turns out I'm terrible at mimicking other people's good work, so I interpreted the idea of blocking my own way. I took a pose I saw, drew a dummy for it, blocked in the basic shapes and light planes, then translated it into bone and muscle.

Here's what I ended up with: (Am I doing this right?)

[JeffX99]

When we work from life, we get the planes from the light: when we work from imagination, we get the light from the planes.

I agree with Chris! Excellent. Take a bow, sir. :yayca:

Oh yeah red, you're right on track so don't get too hung up on the little stuff. If you want a better mannequin get the male and female mannequins from Art S. Buck: http://www.dickblick.com/products/art-s-buck-anatomical-models/#photos. To me they still have a lot of funkiness that has to be dealt with, I painted them a flat, off white. I have a hard time working from mannequins though - probably 'cause I don't do it. I think the main use for a mannequin is to give you light, volume and foreshortening information - obvious I guess. Keep it up!

[Elwell]

I agree with Chris! Excellent. Take a bow, sir. :yayca:

Its not original with me, but I forget where I picked it up from. One could substitute "values" for "light."

[dose]

Your explanations made quite a lot of sense. I was overcomplicating things trying to imagine a 3D studio viewport in my head and then adding lights, etc.


Yes- I don't mean it so literally. It's just that the bounding box in 3D solves a very basic question- where is it in space, which way is it facing, and how big is it in general? We need to answer that basic question when drawing.


Turns out I'm terrible at mimicking other people's good work, so I interpreted the idea of blocking my own way.


Good. It's better to do your own.

Here's another way to think about this- it's like writing an outline for an essay or a speech. There's no right or wrong notes to make- it's whatever will help you make the points you need to make when you get to giving the actual speech. It doesn't matter what other people do, though maybe you can pick up some cool shorthand or mnemonic techniques or organizational strategies from them. For a very short and simple speech, maybe you don't need notes because you can memorize the whole thing, or you know the points well enough by heart. But if it's long and complicated and you just start from the beginning without the notes, you're likely to forget some of your points or muddle some things up.

Does that make sense?


Here's what I ended up with: (Am I doing this right?)

If it helped you you're doing it right. But don't stop there and decide you've got it. Evolve your dummy based on your understanding of human anatomy. This process can take years.

[George Abraham]

Your explanations made quite a lot of sense. I was overcomplicating things trying to imagine a 3D studio viewport in my head and then adding lights, etc.

In fact I re-read the entire section again about 3 times, and did some drawings trying to mimic what he was saying. Turns out I'm terrible at mimicking other people's good work, so I interpreted the idea of blocking my own way. I took a pose I saw, drew a dummy for it, blocked in the basic shapes and light planes, then translated it into bone and muscle.

Here's what I ended up with: (Am I doing this right?)

Yes. I think you are some of the few that's doing what loomis suggested.

It's a mental language that helps you remember and simplify construction from imagination etc. It's a framework that simplifies allot of things and solves allot of problems regarding orientations, perspective and general lighting problems. If you have always just drew outline or iconic shape to memorise object's, and someone asks you to draw what you drew but from a different angle, let's say it was a teenage mutant ninja turtle face, you need to break the image down into a 3D notation and not the accustomed iconic way. You need to understand the 3D blocking and general form of that head in order to rotate it that way without having much of a reference.

Blocking form is handy in multiple cases, you can block muscle shapes to help you remember them better and their general behaviour in bulk. Bridgeman is a good example and his stuff serves a much simpler blueprint for bold statement of certain facts in form for you to ingest and keep.

Translated.. You imagine naked ladies much easier.