Results 14 to 26 of 48
August 21st, 2009 #14
I really like his work; however I don`t think his books are very good for LEARNING anatomy because he has a style that stylizes the figures a lot and are unrealistic, It`s a lot better to learn from other people that use a more realistic approach or even medical anatomy books.
Hide this ad by registering as a memberAugust 23rd, 2009 #15
I really think his books are good to get a grasp of the 3 dimensions and a better understanding of the shadow areas on the figure, if you don't have the possibility to have classes with a model.
You just need to analyze it in the correct way. You'l be good if you don't study anatomy with him :p
August 23rd, 2009 #16
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).
August 23rd, 2009 #17
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.
August 23rd, 2009 #18
August 23rd, 2009 #19Registered User
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Manhattan, NY
- Thanked 288 Times in 256 Posts
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.
August 23rd, 2009 #20
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.
August 25th, 2009 #21
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.
August 25th, 2009 #22
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.
August 26th, 2009 #23
(scored to an IVAN MAXIMOV Classic animated short )
August 26th, 2009 #24
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.
August 26th, 2009 #25
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.
August 26th, 2009 #26
The Following User Says Thank You to Black Spot For This Useful Post: