View Full Version : Hogarth
August 27th, 2002, 06:19 PM
so...hogarth eh?...i have heard so many conflicting opinions about his books. some people love him and some people hate him, but ive never heard the reasons why. since i have no opinion on the guy, let me hear yours. go on, convince me...i dare ya...
August 27th, 2002, 06:44 PM
if i were you, i wouldnt take anyones opinions on books without reading them first (or flipping through them). This could turn out to be very expensive. :(
what works for someone wouldnt necessarily work for you.
You might overlook great books (that work for you) in the process.
I personally dont like Hogarths books but that doesnt mean much. Generally people dont like his books because of the style.
August 27th, 2002, 08:17 PM
ah, i already have a couple of them you see. i have flicked through them a few times but never really had a decent read. besides, i really wanna know WHY people like/dislike him so much. his style looks quite...odd to me but im not really sure why.
August 27th, 2002, 10:23 PM
heh... not very expensive here in my country. :D ~10$ each
Well... I like his books coz they explain a lot of things about human firure, head etc. Helped me a lot in my studies. Besides, Hogarth also show particular parts in dependence with whole body so he shows the proportions... heh I can go on forever
To my mind the only thing not very great in his books is shading. I don't know why... May be because I was taught to do it another way... Anyway Hogarth rules :D:D:D
August 27th, 2002, 11:19 PM
What I dont like about them, particularly the dynamic anatomy book is the the figure seems too "rubbery" It doesn't seem to show a defined bone structure underneath.
August 28th, 2002, 05:47 AM
First of all, I think his books are boring to read. I like the way he separates the muscles and gives hundreds of poses. I dislike the Nazi-art look of his figures.
August 28th, 2002, 10:39 AM
why can't we just be eclectic and take the best from everything?
August 30th, 2002, 07:59 PM
I like and dislike different things about his books.
What I like is how he breakes down the human body showing the various surface planes. Especially in the hands, feet and the faces. His books are great for seeing those sorts of things. Doing this gives it a very Art-Deco look. I personally like that style, calling it "Nazi style" is a bit strong. That was the style of the times, one which I like. You will find more than one American propaganda poster using that style.
What I dont like is that while, he gives you a bajillion poses, he never just showes the appendage or part at rest. Sometimes its a bit hard to get just where things lie in relation to the others when you see them stretched out and then contracted in every drawing.
His "How to draw the human head is awesome. A great book. He shows you and explaines to you alot about different proportions that deal with age, race, and sex. A really good one in my opinion, one of the better ones to me.
Thats about it for me on Hogarth. His books are great for learning surface structure. But I would definetly supplement his books with some that show the anatomy in a different style. I like Joseph Sheppards "Anatomy: A complete guide for artists". And you can't go wrong with the "Pax Anatomy" Though, I believe its out of print now, If you can find an old copy, its great.
September 5th, 2002, 03:13 AM
Hogarth is pretty decent. I like his art.
But, I don't like learning from his books.
Hogarth doesn't meantion bone structure AT ALL. While I was studying from Dynamic Anatomy I'd be drawing various arms, poses, etc; and I'd just be wondering "why does this go here? What's this muscle even DO?!"
I've been studying Stephen Roger Pecks "Atlas of Human Anatomy for the Artist." It's REALLY in depth. It goes through each bone, talks about it's shape/form, explains where ever muscle attaches to the bones, etc. It explains all the muscles after that. It even goes onto a little bit about where the fat is regularly deposited, goes into the vascular system, the anatomy of different parts (like the eye, teeth, etc). Now I'm not just looking at a line or a curve, I'm looking in the mirror and saying to myself "ok, there's my sternomastoid. It attaches down by my sternum." Instead of saying "there's those two lines that go down your neck.
When you read a hogarth book you just see those two muscles there. You don't know where they attach. Why they're there. You don't know what they do. You just know to draw it in there.
Studying bone structure and muscular structure has helped out drawing arms a lot. I had trouble with them before. I didn't know where to draw everything, how it should look. Now when I look at an arm I can envision in my head the humerus, follow it down and actually SEE the medial and lateral epicondyles (before I just knew there were two bumps... never knew what it was), I can follow the Ulna all the way down to the lateral side of the wrist. I try to envision the radius in my head. I can see the difference of the ulna and radius positions when in palmar and prone positions. Muscles make more sense now.
When I look at a face I can (try to) see all the bones. The occipital (sp?) protuberance, the zygomatic bone, I understand how the eye lays in it's socket now, I understand how the ear is placed in relationship to the ramus of your mandible.
The only problem is, it takes much more time to learn from. You're not just learning some muscles from copying drawings, you're learning what's underneath the skin and how it operates. You're not just learning to draw a car; you're learning how the engine operates. I think it'll take longer, but I think my anatomy will be much much better in the end.
So, there's my rant there.
Oh yeah... If you go back and look at the old masters, they used to cut open dead people to study the bone structure that way! I think it's extremely important. But... yeah... just my lengthy opinion.
September 16th, 2002, 06:47 PM
I have a few Hogarth books, and I find them helpful. But really they're best when combined with some other reference that deals more with underlying structure and function, rather than just surface anatomy.
So I ask you guys, what makes a good companion for Hogarth?
I have An Atlas of Anatomy for Artists by Fritz Schider, which is excellent. Schider does a great job of showing where and how muscles overlap and interact.
People seem to like Bridgman. I have only one of his books, The Human Machine, but I'm afraid I haven't found it very helpful. It seems like he's covering everything quickly with terse little notes, like he's reminding you of things you already know, rather than giving the deeper explanations necessary for learning something for the first time. But maybe this is among Bridgman's weaker books?
Even though I generally like Hogarth, I agree with what someone said a few posts up. His style makes it difficult to understand how to shade forms correctly, even while it makes the forms themselves very clear.
September 21st, 2002, 07:50 PM
I cant stand his figures.. way to inventive, not enough actual observation of the human form. Or perhaps, just way to stylized. Seems a lot of comic book artists study from him, and you can tell.. a lot of comic book art has really crappy anatomy and it all kinda looks the same.
I'm sure theres deeper meaning to be found in his books, they arent the kind of books a beginner should start out with without some experience dealing with honest to god anatomy where bones actually matter.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.