Burne Hogarth Books

Join 500,000+ Artists

Its' free and it takes less than 10 seconds!

Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 45
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    1,012
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 181 Times in 158 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    Burne Hogarth Books

    Hey guys Ive recently been doing so drawing from Hogarths Dynamic Figure Drawing. Im curious as to what principals Hogarth is exactly trying to get across? His drawings have a very specific style to them especially his shading. Ive been copying his drawings very precisely but Im starting to think that Im missing the point here. He draws very "bubbly" musculature.. if that makes any sense.. and it seems to me that its more of a book about surface anatomy than anything else. I feel like Im missing something and theres more to these books that Im not understanding. I HATE simply copying from a book when I dont know why Im doing it.. I also know that this is a useless practice. Can anyone help me understand what Burnes trying to say?

    "We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of dreams."


    MY SKETCHBOOK!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #2
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    900
    Thanks
    155
    Thanked 205 Times in 111 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I used to think Hogarth was great... now I'm not so sure. For pure learning about anatomy, I now think the other "usual suspects" are better (you know who I mean... Loomis, Bridgeman, Peck, etc). What Hogarth does is reduce anatomical forms into kind of abstract/mechanical approximations. At the time I thought that was just what I needed, because it makes the forms and structures CLEAR. Later I realized he makes things "clear" but not necessarily "right".

    Besides that, don't try to actually READ what he says... he'll tax even fans of convoluted Victorian prose... just take what you can from the diagrams and captions.

    "Change is a virtue my friend... if you want to escape, all you have to do is make up your mind."
    John Cale / Bob Neuwirth


    Here be SKETCHIES...

    www.ccthrom.com
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    792
    Thanks
    186
    Thanked 409 Times in 235 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Bleh, Hogarth...

    Jenő Barcsay's "Anatomy for the Artist" has the clearest muscle illustration that I've seen. Unfortunately it lacks in some other respects such as proportion. If you can find this in the large original size I'd suggest grabbing it, as the newer version is a bit small.

    Stephen Peck's "Atlas of Human Anatomy for the Artist" has very good bone illustration, but the muscle illustrations don't quite have enough contrast. He does include a lot of other really useful info however including different body types (fat vs emancipated, etc).

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    1,122
    Thanks
    146
    Thanked 183 Times in 154 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Burne hogarth's books seem a little odd at first glance. After working fomr it for a while and then back to my drawings from imagination I noticed a big improvement in contour and forms. I think his drawings are exagerated (bulgy) so its easier to recall when you go back to doing a drawing. Just understate what was obviously their in Hogarth's book.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Haven, CT
    Posts
    2,083
    Thanks
    323
    Thanked 968 Times in 519 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Look for Bridgman's books, they may be a lot closer to what you are looking for. Bridgman does a better job in my opinion of showing you the underlaying structure and purpose of the various muscle groups.

    I've never been a fan of Hogarth's books. I agree his figures look strange, and the books themselves didn't seem as helpful as other books did (although I admit it's been years since I looked at his books, so maybe I missed stuff). Bridgman, for me, is when anatomy really started to make sense.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    653
    Thanks
    124
    Thanked 230 Times in 117 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I second Bridgman. I have had a few anatomy book where I used to do studies from. But it hasn't been untill a few months ago I started studying from Bridgman. It's been only since I've been doing the bridgman studies that I've had the feeling I was really starting to understand anatomy. Other books show you where the muscles are, Bridgman shows you HOW to draw those muscles.
    And his books are dirt cheap and super easy to carry around, it's a sin not to pick them up imo.

    The Barcsay book I own too. A bit confusing for a beginner I think, it was for me anyway. But anatomy can be very confusing at first, and this was my first anatomy book. I was doing some studies from the book a few days ago and it's nice to have a break from Bridgmans abstractions. I guess it's a good book if you already have a basic understanding of the musclegroups.

    I'll keep my toughts about Hogarth to myself
    I guess he's not all bad, Marko swears by him.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    1,012
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 181 Times in 158 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Thanks guys.. I actually do have all of Bridgmans books and I love them. They make the most sense to me by far. I just read some stuff about Hogarth so I thought I would take a look.. I dont know what I think about his books yet.

    "We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of dreams."


    MY SKETCHBOOK!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    1,012
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 181 Times in 158 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    A bit off topic from my original post but I was wondering If you guys knew a good way to get a binded book like Bridgman onto individual sheets of paper so that I can lay the pages flat in order to study them. I hate flattening the books because it destroys the bindings and I wanna make sure I keep the books intact. Books are always being put out of print and it would suck if mine fell apart and I couldnt get another copy. I could photocopy the pages but the quality would probably suck

    "We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of dreams."


    MY SKETCHBOOK!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    938
    Thanks
    364
    Thanked 274 Times in 157 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Bridgeman all the way, cant stress how much I have learnt in such a small space of time from that book!

    it just seems to be that the way everything is drawn and exaggerated, means i remember it straight away from imagination...well almost i still learning of course



    Looking for work experience - let me show you what I can do
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Torrance, CA
    Posts
    6,802
    Thanks
    2,278
    Thanked 4,259 Times in 2,074 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Hogarth is okay after learning more straightforward anatomy in my opinion. It's just that it works great for what he advertises which is "dynamic" but as others have said it doesn't necessarily mean correct. I personally find his figures too...rubbery.

    Bridgman is great because of the following reasons. He's sketchy. You might think "I need something clear"! Well the thing to me is I do find it more exciting and get the juices flowing when everything isn't interpreted for you. Learning to sketch and getting things to read is critical in my opinion. If you don't have ideas you can't go back to because you have no idea what the hell you were drawing then that's a problem. Drawback is that..well his females aren't so great.

    Peck was also mentioned as was Loomis. Loomis seems to fare much better than Bridgman in drawing the female form. Peck is good for structure and different forms, child, adult, fat, and skinny.

    Gottfried Bammes is another one I'd recommend. His books are in pdf format online if you know where to look but they're in German. However, his insight on the figure is great.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,080
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,161 Times in 1,707 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    This topic has been covered a lot, and I get into it every time. The long and short of it is, Hogarth has written the only anatomy books in history for which no models were consulted. The entire book is stylizations based on ideas he had about physical movement while working on his Tarzan Sunday comic strip for a decade. If you are a fan of his artwork, your will appreciate that he is instructing you on its construction. Otherwise, Bridgman, Loomis, Bammes, Peck are, IMHO, better choices.

    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to kev ferrara For This Useful Post:


  14. #12
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    oakland
    Posts
    1,197
    Thanks
    279
    Thanked 200 Times in 122 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    well said,
    if you are looking for accurate anatomy he's is definitely the last place to look.
    His perspective and gesture is often straight up weird. (not to mention odd bulbous heads)


    but i still think if used sparingly and appropriately he has his place

    hogarth is great for imparting the idea of weight and volume

    anatomy its just not his forte at all. i think we would excuse alot of this if he had not put "anatomy" in the title of any of his books.
    we might think of him as an interesting illustrator rather than a failed anatomist


    -

    Last edited by kingshaj; May 5th, 2009 at 09:13 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cold north
    Posts
    1,511
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 699 Times in 166 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    The entire book is stylizations based on ideas he had about physical movement while working on his Tarzan Sunday comic strip for a decade.
    I thought most Bridgman sketches were done without reference aswell. I believe I read it somewhere on ca even. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  16. #14
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Hudson River valley, NY
    Posts
    16,212
    Thanks
    4,879
    Thanked 16,675 Times in 5,021 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Wasker View Post
    I thought most Bridgman sketches were done without reference aswell. I believe I read it somewhere on ca even. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
    You're wrong.


    Tristan Elwell
    **Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial

    Crash Course for Artists, Illustrators, and Cartoonists, NYC, the 2013 Edition!

    "Work is more fun than fun."
    -John Cale

    "Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."
    -Marc Maron
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Elwell For This Useful Post:


  18. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,008
    Thanks
    175
    Thanked 696 Times in 292 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Bridgman was well known for amazing students by cranking out a figure from his head in a couple minutes. The difference between him and Hogarth is that Bridgman was able to do this based on years of observation and analysis from life and the masters, whereas Hogarth skipped the observation part and created an interesting but heavily stylized method of portraying the figure that he developed over many years drawing a comic out of his head.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  19. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to dose For This Useful Post:


  20. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    294
    Thanks
    130
    Thanked 131 Times in 118 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I never really liked hogarth, but I read several of his books anyway assuming I could learn something without producing drawings like his. Some of the basic forms he uses for the body can be useful for construction but thats about it, if that is even any good. I also find it annoying that he calls all his books "dynamic" when in fact his rigid set of rules dosent allow for much.

    One thing that Ive heard a few times from different sources is that ignoring bone structure can cause your figure to lose solidity and look rubbery. This seams to have happened to him, since he largely ignores the bones and his figures do have that loose, rubbery quality to them.

    Anyway in a convent list form, I think hogarth has the following problems:

    -Ignores the bones!!!(rubber)

    -all the illustrations are from his imagination, so there is no proof to his methods, you just have to take his word for it.

    -He teaches you HIS way to draw, not A way(your illustrations will look like his if you follow the book enough)

    -Uses unflexiable often erroneous rules to illustrate the figure (remember the butterfly butt check, and all the other, "this always looks like this" stuff)

    -questionable perspective

    -awkward and often impossible poses

    The exact moment I disregarded hogarth was when I saw someones drawing that looked "hogarthian" and of course discovered they had in fact studied hogarths books. To me this was proof that his books did little more than teach you to draw like him.

    The one good aspect of hogarth is that he has brought to light the importance of bone structure and life studies.

    Anyway thats pretty much my personal opinion on hogarth, beware.

    Tenminutedrawing - awesome learn to draw series http://www.youtube.com/user/moatddtutorials
    A short list of my favorite tutorials http://surfandsnow.deviantart.com/journal/22269212/


    My Sketchbook
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  21. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    1,012
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 181 Times in 158 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    how would you go about making sure that you dont adopt to much of a style based on your anatomy studies? Im always working from books like Bridgmans and Loomis and I always fear that I will slowly draw in their style. Is drawing from life a good way to be sure you will do your own thing? Since when you draw from life you are always doing it your own way since there is nothing between you and the subject.

    "We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of dreams."


    MY SKETCHBOOK!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  22. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Torrance, CA
    Posts
    6,802
    Thanks
    2,278
    Thanked 4,259 Times in 2,074 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by biggjoee5790 View Post
    how would you go about making sure that you dont adopt to much of a style based on your anatomy studies? Im always working from books like Bridgmans and Loomis and I always fear that I will slowly draw in their style. Is drawing from life a good way to be sure you will do your own thing? Since when you draw from life you are always doing it your own way since there is nothing between you and the subject.
    Simple, you look at more than one artist for studying. You may copy their methods on one approach...then you take away the book or piece you're referencing from and draw from your memory or imagination. The less you look at one single item to reference from and draw out of your head after doing studies from reference, you'll start noticing your own preferences kick in.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  23. #19
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    oakland
    Posts
    1,197
    Thanks
    279
    Thanked 200 Times in 122 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by biggjoee5790 View Post
    Is drawing from life a good way to be sure you will do your own thing?
    sure is,
    but it would be a mistake to sleep on the books of the artists being talked about here.

    Quote Originally Posted by surfandsnow View Post

    -awkward and often impossible poses
    but id skip this one....

    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by kingshaj; May 6th, 2009 at 02:44 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  24. #20
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    301
    Thanks
    56
    Thanked 85 Times in 73 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Hogarth is great for a certain type of stylization. IMO, he has some very good ideas about forms. It's also worth noting that in terms of popularity he was far more successful than any of the other "usual suspects." A successful and vibrant stylization doesn't always mean anatomical correctness.

    That said, I think Bridgman and Loomis are probably better to learn from. Seems to me that Hogarth's methods assume that you have some idea of the underlying structure first.

    "I know the Way, know the Way, know the Way, know the Way" -Achilles' Last Stand

    Tutorial: Realistic Perspective Renderings from 2D Line Art
    Sketchbook
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  25. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,080
    Thanks
    1,516
    Thanked 5,161 Times in 1,707 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Strela View Post
    It's also worth noting that in terms of popularity he was far more successful than any of the other "usual suspects.
    Not sure what you mean by this or in what sense it might be true. Firstly, quality is often inversely proportional to popularity because getting good at selling takes time away from time otherwise spent getting good at making artwork. This is just one of the many reasons why populism is the antithesis of quality. Let's not confuse the issue. Quality information for painters is the only issue at stake here. If people want good information they seek it out, it doesn't seek them out. You'll notice Richard Schmid doesn't need to hawk his Alla Prima at the local bookshop.

    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to kev ferrara For This Useful Post:


  27. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Birth Place of the World, NYC
    Posts
    2,830
    Thanks
    2,631
    Thanked 1,044 Times in 681 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Could never use Bridgman. Not fully rendered enough for me to get a decent understanding.

    I use Peck and some Loomis in concert.

    I tried Hogarth in the beginning, but it didn't 'click' for me.

    Funny that Bargue was the one to push me forward.

    "Everything must serve the idea. The means used to convey the idea should be the simplest and clear. Just what is required. No extra images. To me this is a universal principle of art. Saying as much as possible with a minimum of means."
    -John Huston, Director
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  28. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,597
    Thanks
    363
    Thanked 694 Times in 439 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by OmenSpirits View Post
    Could never use Bridgman. Not fully rendered enough for me to get a decent understanding.
    I didn't get Bridgman at first either, copied through all his books with close to zero results. It's unfortunate that so many beginners are encouraged to seek him out without proper preparation. Now that I have a better understanding of fundamentals, which I got from other sources, I can easily see what he's trying to do, it's like watching an old out of shape dancer who knows the principles behind the moves yet can't pull them off with grace anymore. You really need to make the little box mannequin that he describes in "Life Drawing". Everything in there literally builds off of that. If you do that, and understand what he's trying to show in the examples, and pose the mannequin for each example, the results are powerful. I still think his folds book sucks, and the heads book is also pretty weak since what's in that is covered in a few pages in Life Drawing.
    I think Hogarth has some useful tips, like treating clothing as a second skin that responds to the 4 basic actions of the body, S curve for profile legs, B shape for frontal legs, and Marko and KChen prove that it is possible to adopt some of his techniques. It's possible to copy Bridgman's books several times and find new things, you'll realize the meaning of a tiny line that you originally overlooked, but it's not worthwhile to go through Hogarth multiple times. Hogarth's drawings tend to be overworked, a lot of his shading is meaningless decoration and not worth copying, because it doesn't describe form or spatial orientation. Contrast that with Bridgman's very utilitarian style. However I like how he puts so much stress on outline and silhouette, so you can count the muscles on the contours, and each muscle is basically a kind of oval, so it's possible to create a simplified sort of flat paper figure, Bammes has a similar exercise.

    Quote Originally Posted by surfandsnow View Post
    One thing that Ive heard a few times from different sources is that ignoring bone structure can cause your figure to lose solidity and look rubbery. This seams to have happened to him, since he largely ignores the bones and his figures do have that loose, rubbery quality to them.
    Hogarth has some pretty good illustrations of the bones in the hand, and how that fits into the wrist. What causes the rubberiness of his figures is the excessive use of curved lines, and bending the arms and legs at 90 degree angles. Incidents of wierd foreshortening are probably caused by using stencils.

    Sketchbook

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

  29. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    210
    Thanks
    215
    Thanked 202 Times in 99 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by armando View Post
    I didn't get Bridgman at first either, copied through all his books with close to zero results. It's unfortunate that so many beginners are encouraged to seek him out without proper preparation. Now that I have a better understanding of fundamentals, which I got from other sources, I can easily see what he's trying to do, it's like watching an old out of shape dancer who knows the principles behind the moves yet can't pull them off with grace anymore.
    I hear that a lot, I have always suggested studying Loomis first or at least concurrent with Bridgman. I had one of his books as a kid and didn't get much out of it because I was trying to copy, I only actually started learning after analysis of my own weaknesses. I would avoid Hogarth, maybe when you have the knowledge to analyze what he is doing it might be helpful but time could be better spent elsewhere. It took multiple artists and books to attain some level of competency for me and I still try to find new books every day.

    Also throw in some perspective study in the beginning, that will help your anatomy and understanding of Bridgman especially. It's not boring, I promise.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  30. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    1,012
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 181 Times in 158 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    ya perspective is something ive been neglecting because it seems so technical. but I know i have to do it so im gonna start

    "We are the music makers... and we are the dreamers of dreams."


    MY SKETCHBOOK!
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  31. #26
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 5 Times in 2 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by biggjoee5790 View Post
    ya perspective is something ive been neglecting because it seems so technical. but I know i have to do it so im gonna start
    What are some good books on perspective?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  32. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,597
    Thanks
    363
    Thanked 694 Times in 439 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Ernest Norling's "Perspective Made Easy" is one of the best, even Loomis recommends it, so you know it's got to be good.

    Sketchbook

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

  33. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Lisbon, I think...
    Posts
    912
    Thanks
    69
    Thanked 153 Times in 107 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I second Ernest Norling's book.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  34. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    155
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 43 Times in 20 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I recently finished studying Burne Hogarth's Dynamic Figure Drawing by methodically copying every image from the book. It took me about a year at an hour a day. I also have pursued life drawing extensively within the same period.

    The most important thing I got from Hogarth is the "angular range" that his lines encouraged in my own hand by drawing their exaggerated curvature. Another thing I got was his "break points" that seem to introduce interesting detail to what would otherwise be a more direct way of drawing a line.

    Basically, what I learned from Hogarth is a greater confidence of line, without sacrificing subtlety.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  35. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dover, NJ
    Posts
    1,133
    Thanks
    472
    Thanked 335 Times in 171 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Bammes + consulting my figure drawing teacher from a year and a half ago has been a godsend for me, personally. I've been meaning to get ahold of the Bridgeman books, I'm sure they are great.

    "Twisted by the dark side, young Artist has become. The boy you trained, gone he is... consumed by Deviantart."
    Please, visit my SB ~ N E C R O S K E T C H I K O N ! [Updated :: November 2011]
    My DeviantArt Profile: http://dyspezzia.deviantart.com/
    My Portfolio:
    http://www.pezzworks.com
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 7

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
  •  
  • 424,149 Artists
  • 3,599,276 Artist Posts
  • 32,941 Sketchbooks
  • 54 New Art Jobs
Art Workshop Discount Inside
Register

Developed Actively by vBSocial.com
The Art Department
SpringOfSea's Sketchbook