What the heck am I looking at?

Join 500,000+ Artists

Its' free and it takes less than 10 seconds!

Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: What the heck am I looking at?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Savannah, GA
    Posts
    3,091
    Thanks
    1,795
    Thanked 1,555 Times in 607 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    What the heck am I looking at?

    That question ever come to mind when you're reading a Bridgman book?

    Yes, they're great books, but sometimes I really can't tell if I'm looking at a tendon or tortellini. (No, not seriously) But his work is really scratchy and sometimes hard to read, at least for me.

    Had the original works aged a bit before they were reproduced, or is it the material he drew with? (I think it's charcoal.)

    CASE & POINT: I like Loomis better, even though it's impossible for me to own a physical copy of his books for the time being.

    Last edited by Psychotime; October 16th, 2008 at 12:07 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,557
    Thanks
    361
    Thanked 681 Times in 429 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Ha. Yeah, I can't say I'm a fan of Bridgman. I've copied through every book of his except "The Human Machine", the downloadable versions I've found are really low quality. His worst book is definitely "The seven Laws of Folds", useless unless you already know what's he's drawing about.

    Sketchbook

    "Beliefs are rules for action"
    "Knowledge is proven in action."
    "It's use is it's meaning."
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,378
    Thanks
    669
    Thanked 537 Times in 295 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Yeah, I've found that Bridgman's stuff definately requires you to at least have some intuitive ideas about the subject first. Personally I prefer Hogarth, his books have always spoken very clearly to me.

    -My work can be found at my local directory thread.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,774
    Thanks
    768
    Thanked 769 Times in 340 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I find Bridgman good for his gestural studies. But Hogarth is good for muscle structure. Loomis is good for proportions, Hammond is good for beginners.

    Balance is the key.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to FourTonMantis For This Useful Post:


  7. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oviedo, Asturias (SPAIN)
    Posts
    170
    Thanks
    137
    Thanked 34 Times in 24 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I did some studies of arms after bridgman and I can't say I learned a lot. With Robert B. Hale I did some studies of shoulders and necks and now I'm quite confident drawing those. I don't know.

    By the way I'm just wondering what should I be studying for my anatomy. I SUCK at it, and I really need to be studying it intensively. I'd like to get the most profit from my studies, as I find them veeeery boring.

    I've just reached that point (you get there every few months) I feel like I dont know SHIT about drawing. I need to learn perspective, anatomy, proportions, the very basics. I want to be doing 4 hour studies each morning for the next few months, just so I can really push my art to a new level. Now I'm just wondering HOW should I be studying.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,068
    Thanks
    992
    Thanked 2,159 Times in 753 Posts
    Follows
    1
    Following
    0
    I really love Bridgman. His method of constructing the figure really helped me a lot. I will confess that some of the illustrations and accompanying text can be really confusing, but for the most part if I copy the drawing I can still get a lot out of it.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Haven, CT
    Posts
    2,083
    Thanks
    323
    Thanked 968 Times in 519 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Bridgman is the guy who finally got everything to start clicking for me back in art school. I'll admit, I didn't really read the books, but the sketches to me did a great job of helping me to understand how different body parts locked together like a puzzle. Bridgman just made the concept of finding the bigger shapes so much easier for me to understand.

    Loomis is really good too, but I HATE Hogarth. A LOT of his sketches just look incredibly off to me.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to J Wilson For This Useful Post:


  11. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,378
    Thanks
    669
    Thanked 537 Times in 295 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I'll agree with you there J Wilson, even though I like Hogarth I still think his sketches just don't quite look "right". What I like about Hogarth though is that the way he constructs the figure really makes sense to me while Bridgman leaves me feeling like I'd be better just sketching after photographs or live models.

    To each their own though, all of the artists mentioned have their own methods and they all persist because depending on the individual any of the methods could be the one that works best for them.

    -My work can be found at my local directory thread.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  12. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Haven, CT
    Posts
    2,083
    Thanks
    323
    Thanked 968 Times in 519 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Anid Maro View Post
    I'll agree with you there J Wilson, even though I like Hogarth I still think his sketches just don't quite look "right". What I like about Hogarth though is that the way he constructs the figure really makes sense to me while Bridgman leaves me feeling like I'd be better just sketching after photographs or live models.

    To each their own though, all of the artists mentioned have their own methods and they all persist because depending on the individual any of the methods could be the one that works best for them.
    Yep, agreed. It doesn't matter if his sketches look off if you are learning, because you'll always tailor what you learned to what you can personally observe and hopefully come up with your own system in the end. I certainly get what others say when they say they don't care for Bridgman too. His style at times can be abstract or so loose as to be a little mystifying. Which ever source works for you works for you. I think Hogarthe was one of the first anatomy and "how to draw" books I ever bought on a recommendation, and I just remember feeling it it just didn't help me that much.

    There was actually a pretty decent anatomy drawing book first year of life drawing class we had to buy, but I can't for the life of me remember who wrote it. I probably still have it somewhere if I really look for it.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to J Wilson For This Useful Post:


Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •