I started my studying by exclusively using Loomis' Figure Drawing book. I learned a ton about proportions and such, but I wasnt really feeling confident in my drawing of figures. I noticed many people stressed the fact that all things are made up of simple shapes, Loomis really doesnt get into this.. He starts by drawing this "manequin" to show gesture, but doing this made my drawings EXTREMELY stiff. Everytime i created my own gesture from my mind, it looked like a stiff skeleton. Only until I came across bridgman and vilppu did I start seeing shapes. Im currently looking through the first chapters of the Vilppu manual and its amazing how much life he gives to those simple bean shaped things After my life drawing class I noticed that when I see the model, I dont see this mannequin like loomis shows, but I see curves, angles, shapes, etc. Bridgman and Vilppu explain everything as basic cubes, spheres, etc. Constructive anatomy by Bridgman shows every single body part as native forms at first before gettiing into detail. I initially praised the Loomis books, but now Im wondering exactly how much theyve helped me. I mean theres no doubt his art is amazing, but for me, when I started thinking about shapes, forms, rhythm, etc, everything kinda clicked. Anyone have an opinion on this? Am I crazy to think the Loomis approach isnt perfect? Just opinion maybe?