I just bought his book Drawing Dynamic Hands and have browse through a few of his dynamic books.
I think his books are really good if you want to come up with dynamic poses, giving figures more force and action.
The exaggeration of the human form is just too much. For the book I have, every finger joint has muscles! I think people just want to draw a simple hand, which is why the many examples of his hand poses are very good.
His books are alright but I'll definitely recommend a real anatomy reference book to go along with it.
Parka Blogs <- Most dangerous blog for artists (and their wallets).
Hide this ad by registering as a member
Burne Hogarth books just have flaws regarding teaching style.
He's a very advanced artist and all his drawing are very advanced. But the issue is he doesn't give the step in-between.
It's like looking at a finished painting and trying to find out how someone did it, it's not gonna help you a lot, lol. Someone explaining the steps would have.
From his 4 major books, I don't think he once explained his process, or gave schematic sketches explaining muscle by muscle, no he just gives you the finished piece and denotes the muscles on that, I'm sorry but that doesn't help a lot. If you want me to learn how to change the oil of a car, explain that to me, stop trying to explain the whole car each time in a general sense...that's where his books go wrong imo.
Another thing is his book where he explains drapery, although his models are awesome, his drapery is just plain weird and the different categories he gives them are very confusing and don't seem to be based on any structure.
lol, that book is the one I mean when I talked about his drapery book not being structured
Originally Posted by kev ferrara
Maybe it doesn't work for you, but it works for me very well, as it does for many other artists. I've never read his drapery book, so I cannot comment on it. The different categories of folds I believe you are referring to are in fact structured and real; you can find these categories in many other books including Bridgman, Vilppu, etc.
Originally Posted by Kaycy is tanning
I don't believe anyone should look down upon any method of learning the human body. People work differently and understand things differently; if Hogarth teaches you how to build figures from your head, then use him. If you prefer to use Bridgman, use him. If you prefer Peck, use him. If you prefer copying photos, do that. If you prefer a varying mix of methods, then do that. There is absolutely no point to discourage any method of learning, if the end product is the same: a well-built figure from the mind.
True, I'm sure some like the books and find useful info in there.
Originally Posted by cdejong
I still believe his teaching style is flawed. I went back and looked at his Dynamic Anatomy and next to it is Bridgman's Human Machine:
Hogarth does not show where the muscles insert, he doesn't show the skeleton on any page, not a single bone / muscle insertion or origin to be found. His text is overly advanced and his terminology can be quite advanced.
Although I understand his book now, at the time that I needed it the most, it was completely useless. I have a little bit of use for it now, but that is only because I read other books which made me understand Hogarth, so the book missed it's goal, namely teaching me in a comprehensive style about anatomy.
The major issue is that once you understand what Hogarth means, you are often past needing the book.
Well, I don't think his goal is to teach anatomy as such.
Originally Posted by Kaycy is tanning
It is rather about constructing a figure in space, how to create foreshortening without relying on a model and stuff like that. In this way it is really great. You can create a convincing flying superhero without having to suspend your little brother in a wire hanging from the ceiling. Many younger brothers have a lot to thank Hogarth for ...
I think his books have been very, very useful in this regard. His drawing style is stylized, yes, but this exaggeration helps to prove his points, I think.
Detailed anatomy you can get elsewhere.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Camilla For This Useful Post:
And he tells people to draw women's breasts like teacups. I really think that his books are only meant to teach basics of form. If you look at his Tarzan comics (google for them) artwork, they look nothing like his extremely stylized, robotic figures.
what most people miss about this image is that it is a bird's eye view, and depicts a figure that has fallen out of a window.
Originally Posted by kev ferrara
He has a very unique take on dynamic anatomy. I studied his book "Dynamic Anatomy" thoroughly and it helped in displaying a more loose and basic look at the human figure in movement. Not every anatomy book out there shows the movement underneath the skin, so it's a very interesting take on drawing the human figure.
I haven't personally found Hogarth very helpful for me, but I feel like that's because my understanding of basic anatomy needs to be better. I think "Dynamic Anatomy" is more about learning to construct the figure without a reference by relying on basic shapes with an emphasis on foreshortening and movement.
I think I might have to get this for my middle son.
Originally Posted by Camilla
Currently doing the Level Up course, so my SB is going to be lonely
The Following User Says Thank You to Black Spot For This Useful Post:
You never really learn from one source. You have to consider that perhaps Hogarth had a different 'market' than Bridgeman for example. It's pretty much the same with those 'Draw the Marvel way' books, you can't expect to learn how to paint or learn great anatomy from them.
Also, a book is never ever enough. It is only the finger pointing to the moon as Bruce Lee put it, you ultimately HAVE to study from the model. Let's not forget the example of the great Hal Foster who learned anatomy by sketching himself using a mirror! No books, no nothing!
Hogarth has his place in art, and he always will, he's offered alot. You just, as has been mentioned, have to understand and know what to use, and when.
By the way I loved the hidden nazi imagery joke.
Really now! "Hatred" is perhaps an emotion best reserved for those things that deserve it, such as injustice, genocide, rape, etc!
"Resentment" perhaps best expresses my feelings toward Mr. Hogarth.
Why? Because he's a piss-poor writer!
In "Dynamic Figure Drawing" he never really gets around to telling you HOW to draw a friggin head. It's all narrative about the appearance of the "ball and wedge"-- not a clue on how to construct said structures.
Better question: did Hogarth rip off Loomis' "ball and plane" treatment of the head, then proceed to do a crappy job of explaining it?
What I would say is that it's good for adding certain skills to your repertoire. I wouldn't recommend it as the first book for anyone, but he does have something to offer. In particular, I'm drawn to it because I'm looking to get more elasticity and exaggeration in my drawings. So I'd say that it's probably better for drawing exaggerated cartoons where they do squash and stretch, but less useful than others for trying to learn a foundation anatomy.
"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
The Following User Says Thank You to OmenSpirits For This Useful Post:
By Gislebertus in forum Art Discussions
Last Post: July 12th, 2010, 11:28 AM
By Famine- in forum Art Critique Center
Last Post: June 20th, 2009, 03:38 PM
By JParrilla in forum Art Discussions
Last Post: May 11th, 2009, 10:32 PM
By resonance in forum 3D Art, Sculpture & Toy Art
Last Post: September 13th, 2005, 08:13 AM
By nil in forum Artist Lounge
Last Post: September 21st, 2002, 07:50 PM
Members who have read this thread: 5
Tags for this Thread
Developed Actively by the makers of the Best Amazon Podcast