Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 48
  1. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    191
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 87 Times in 44 Posts
    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.

    The Light and Dark Arts of Cristian Saksida
    Portfolio:http://www.chrissaksida.com
    Blog:http://cristiansaksidaarts.blogspot.com
    Twitter:http://twitter.com/crissaksida
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    229
    Thanks
    129
    Thanked 59 Times in 46 Posts
    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

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  4. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    360
    Thanks
    29
    Thanked 257 Times in 120 Posts
    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).
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  5. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    213
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 56 Times in 42 Posts
    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.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  6. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    213
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 56 Times in 42 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    Dynamic Anatomy has some interesting information for appreciating form and some really strong artists like that book.

    I can sum up my issues with his teaching in this one supernaturally awkward image:
    lol, that book is the one I mean when I talked about his drapery book not being structured

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  7. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Manhattan, NY
    Posts
    737
    Thanks
    347
    Thanked 288 Times in 256 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaycy is tanning View Post
    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.
    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.

    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.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  8. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    213
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 56 Times in 42 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by cdejong View Post
    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.

    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.

    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.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  9. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    80
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 32 Times in 18 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaycy is tanning View Post
    ... so the book missed it's goal, namely teaching me in a comprehensive style about anatomy.
    Well, I don't think his goal is to teach anatomy as such.
    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.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Camilla For This Useful Post:


  11. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    39.7,-86.1
    Posts
    1,218
    Thanks
    451
    Thanked 408 Times in 256 Posts
    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.

    -Mike Cross


    Sculpting Thread|My Website| DeviantArt |My Blog
    -Also on FB and Twitter
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  12. #23
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    oakland
    Posts
    1,197
    Thanks
    279
    Thanked 200 Times in 122 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by kev ferrara View Post
    Dynamic Anatomy has some interesting information for appreciating form and some really strong artists like that book.

    I can sum up my issues with his teaching in this one supernaturally awkward image:
    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.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  13. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Istanbul, Turkey
    Posts
    35
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked 11 Times in 8 Posts
    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.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  14. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,242
    Thanks
    1,199
    Thanked 1,240 Times in 800 Posts
    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.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  15. #26
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    11,369
    Thanks
    3,785
    Thanked 5,839 Times in 3,945 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Camilla View Post
    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 I might have to get this for my middle son.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Black Spot For This Useful Post:


Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 7

Tags for this Thread

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
SpringOfSea's Sketchbook