This thread is here and not on page 8,943 because SoooOOOOOoooome PEOPLE DO WHAT THE FUCK WE TELL THEM TO! SO...don't apologize, Julie G...
Instead of asking the same g'damn question over and over and over, they use the search function or just cruise through old threads that are ABOUT SOME ASPECT OF ART!
Art! Remember that thing that we all argue about, dissect, distill, study and piss and moan about? I hate REHASHING SHIT that has already been well-discussed, especially something important. Add to it, DON'T fuckin' replace it with all new shit that may not be as concise or contain information that came from people who are no longer here but actually knew what they were talking about in a discussion of a tiny part of the specialized world we live in...
NECRO IS GOOD FOR YOU! NECRO IS GOOD FOR NEWBS! NECRO KEEPS ME FROM GETTING PISSED OFF when I shouldn't have to.
[gk ] Rant ended [/gk ]>>>>RETURN to normal status...
No position or belief, whether religious, political or social, is valid if one has to lie to support it.--Alj Mary
Ironically, the concept of SIMPLICITY is most often misunderstood by simple-minded people. --Alj Mary
His books on anatomy have anatomical problems. I've seen him make matters more complicated then they need to be. I wouldn't call him a hack I just think there are much better books out there. He is over represnted on bookshelves.
I also knew somebody that studied under him at art center and apparently he was abusive to his students. So there may be a vendeta against him as well. But it's just based on second hand information. So I would take that with a grain of salt.
"Skill is the result of trying again and again, applying our ability and proving our knowledge as we gain it. Let us get used to throwing away the unsuccessful effort and doing the job over. Let us consider obstacles as something to be expected in any endeavor; then they won't seem quite so insurmountable or so defeating." - Andrew Loomis
Hogarth's memory of and interest in his own concepts is stronger than his memory of what reality actually looks and feels like.
Thus his concepts are over-rationalized and under-researched. This is the source of their awkward, stylized stiffness. His work lost touch with reality and real experience of life years and years ago.
That he is/was such a willful didact of his awkward concepts, makes him the archetype of the irritating control-freak pop intellectual who is more interested in getting his ego stroked by being considered an intellectual and "right", than by doing decent work. I'm sure he won every argument he was ever in with artists more talented and accomplished than he was.
Gary Groth: ... Burne Hogarth.
Frazetta: Yeah, well, that guy can talk!
Gary Groth [Laughs.] He’s sort of to talking what you are to painting.
Frazetta: Oh. I like that — he’s a masterful talker. Where does he get the energy?
Gary Groth: I don’t know. I talk to him once every couple of months and he never slows down. It’s like he’s constantly on speed or something.
Gary Groth: What did you think of Hogarth’s Tarzan?
Frazetta: Well, Hogie started out emulating Foster, and it looked pretty darn good. But then he just went into his own realm [laughter], and became Hogarth. What can I say? Powerful and dramatic, but he tended to get carried away. It’s that same old thing, you know. They get hung up on something. Most of the time it’s the wrong thing. It’s like good movies. Some people focus on special effects, and there’s no storyline. Others have a thing about close-ups or sex, and it’s just one thing. And they don’t really expand on it!
I dont like hogarts way of not really emphasizing bones and insertions of muscles on the dynamic anatomy book. Also there are not really that much explanatory images like on Bammes book. He is very keen on the shape of body, without schematicaly explaining what makes the shape of the body. However the shape of the body is something that people are going to use in the end, when they draw figure. Since you are not supposed just to draw plain bones and muscles. That stuff is just kind of preliminary for the nude, or maybe eaven clothed figure.
Also the way he and also Bammes uses lighting to explain form, isnt something that anyone should mimic. It would be better to use one light scource and little reflective light, or two light scources. Because in the end people who are trying to understand human body are usually trying to do somekind of finished product (traditional painting, comicbook page, character design etc.) after they have done perioid of anatomy study. So it would be better to use the traditional way of lighting, since most of the folks that are going trough the books, are going to have to learn about the way light hits form anyways. To give kind of taste of what a finished drawing is supposed to look like.
Hogarth just draws fake. The advice that "if it works for you then it's okay" is fake. There are too many pop anatomy books and pop drawing books that it's really a waste of time to bother looking through them even if it's for free, actually it's not free because you are paying with your life. You can get better at drawing by drawing anything, but you can draw your best only by drawing from the best sources.
I tried one of his books. Sure they had pretty pictures, but as the newbie I am they were completely useless. I literally learned nothing.
It was the same with me: I was (and am) quite in awe of his work, but couldn't for the life of me work out what he was on about or how to use the book to improve my own.
I think the problem is that lots of instructional books get written by people who are either so spectacularly talented, or have become so accomplished at what they do, that they either never knew or have forgotten the things that beginners struggle with. They then write books that are wondrously beautiful to look through but of no real use.
Beginners, on the other hand, work through Betty Edwards' books and then become convinced that the secret is to find the right book, that will magically solve all their problems.
I have become very skeptical of the ability of any one book to teach me all that much or generate artistic breakthroughs. In my (admittedly rather limited) personal experience, nothing beats simply sketching anything and everything from life, and to some extent from reference photos and master art works. You have to build up a bit of a personal vocabulary of forms before the instructional books begin to help you.
i studied from both dynamic figure drawing and dynamic anatomy when i first started learning years ago. as a beginner who knew jack shit about drawing both books had a profound affect on me...dynamic figure drawing in particular. as time went on, i got what i needed from both of them and moved on...havent referenced them in years. i'd still recommend dynamic figure drawing to someone starting out.
My first book was dynamic anatomy. It was complicated and way technical in it's explaining, but i've always had a short attention span, so i just thought it was my fault and tried to digest it anyway.
I still use his studies on hands, head, and specially his book on dynamic wrinkles and drapery as reference. Even if i don't get most of it (and i try, it just doesn't stick), i try to analyse the drawings as best i can, and it helps.
Still, it wasn't until right now that i've read about this. You mean i could've made it easier on myself this whole time?
Like mentioned, it's a good necro. Better to necro this thread than start a new one.
Anyhow yeah Hogarth's work is a bit... removed. The general concepts of construction, in that one might "build" a figure piece by piece, is decent but otherwise there's little of value. I've got two of his books, haven't even looked at them in years now. That in itself says something, especially when I've still got Bridgman's sitting out at this very moment.