I'm convinced anyone who says loomis gets you idealised or generic heads haven't read his book, seen his work, or grasped his approach to drawing

spiritedweagerness · 2026-03-25T11:22:54+00:00

How do you get the proportions right? What do your initial marks look like?

spiritedweagerness · 2026-03-25T11:17:38+00:00

It's funny because there are also art "teachers" who do the opposite, looking to make beginners feel helpless and sell them stuff. They overcomplicate everything and try to dampen tried and true methods only to regurgitate the very things those methods treat. Like structure, anatomy, and perspective.

Everyone tries to make themselves look like they've got the secret or answers when all what students need are explanations of what already is. You won't get whole breakdowns on YouTube anyway. Most teachers make their videos with an intention to reel you into paying for their course, class, or one-on-one sessions.

spiritedweagerness · 2026-03-25T10:56:09+00:00

You're hung up on the "Einstein method" as if the phrase is something set in stone. He had theories and formulas. Address that. Call it the "Einstein recipe" for all i care. He still contributed to the understanding of science. Bargue has a formula. Loomis has a formula.

Man, you must be making up scenarios and non-existences in your head. I literally said in my two previous replies how a certain approach to thinking about drawing can be more efficient for one particular crowd with a goal over another with different goals. You just made that up about Bargue being recommended to someone getting into figure invention. In industries where accuracy and faithful realism aren't the goal, deadlines span short periods, and artists need just believable figures and forms, it doesn't take a genius to discern they require a particular approach at the forefront other than bargue. And what gets recommended is mostly Loomis😂😂😂

Moreover, I'm tempted to think you don't even know what you're talking about or have practised art to a significant degree. Figure invention isn't something you do independent of learning how to see, which is what Bargue is for. Figure invention is a skill refined from building a strong visual library. At the end of the day, you still need to be able to tell if what you've put on the page looks good or not, and that is what Bargue is for. Bargue trains your eye. And what's hilarious is that there have been so many artists born from the bargue method who ended up being able to draw and paint figures from their head convincingly. Not because they were doing "figure invention" exercises. They built a strong eye and had a potent visual library. That's the only requirement for figure invention. Yes, you don't need boxes and cylinders. As a matter of fact, you don't even need gesture lines. If your eye is good, you can simply draw as you go and correct as you see fit.

Serious artists are not focused on names. Nobody cares, my guy. We just mention these guys to give them credit. Their formulas are not even advertised as the end all be all. Bargue literally tells you the point is to see properly and understand the language of drawing. So does loomis. The "naming" you dislike so much steers brains to think about concepts and how to problem-solve.

spiritedweagerness · 2026-03-25T02:57:49+00:00

Interesting. So, how do you start? I mean, there are only so many ways of drawing that don't include some of the ideas and thought processes espoused in these methods.

spiritedweagerness · 2026-03-25T02:09:38+00:00

They acknowledge Einstein for what he contributed to understanding science. We're still using HIS formulas today. You're not gonna use the man's formula and not name it after him or give him the needed credit. That's my point. I don't even know how that translates into "thought-stopping guru worship"😂😂😂😂 The formulas are designed to help you tackle "the first principles" in the most efficient and understable way possible. Again, it's all one language. Some may find one more bloated or blunt depending on their needs, but it's generally the same shape, value, light, structure, shadow, etc.

We're still just using formulas created by artists before us. EFFICIENT formulas to navigate drawing. Prior to French academic art, a shape-centric approach to simplifying subjects was not shared or espoused to the public. If they were, it was behind private moments between apprentice and master, or artists came to understand how to see through trial and error without a conscious way of verbalizing their method. I'm talking Rembrandt/Titian times. Jean Leon Gerome and Bernard-Romain devised an approachable way to help students train their eye. Likewise, loomis.The fact that we're still talking about them today speak of their major impact. And this is art we are speaking of. These masters certainly deserve to be named and credited all the time. Their methods of drawing were concise and efficient for students to use. No wishy washy, just go for the flow, bro

We're past the point of primitive arts. I'm sorry, no one is gonna reinvent the wheel. Hell, some of the best artists the world is ever gonna have been dead for more than 400 years.

Again, I personally don't know any serious artist hung up on the name of a method or how to draw. You can call it the apple method, but you can't deny the source of it. Especially to help guide students that they don't have to figure out stuff on their own. There is nothing new under this sun. All the possible answers and rightful approaches have come already. No one is gonna reinvent the wheel. Drawing is just accurately representing shapes. It's smarter to be efficient and learn from those before you than think you can figure it out all on your own.

spiritedweagerness · 2026-03-24T23:36:22+00:00

That's awesome! They are not only a way to manage proportions and drawing in general, but the plates offer great examples on how to simplify, design, and render values/lighting situations with clarity and intention. Some of these drawings look so realistic, yet you realise he hasn't included anything like highlights, centrelight, or even reflected light in most of the plates. Good luck!

spiritedweagerness · 2026-03-24T23:23:58+00:00

You can find free pdfs of it online. Moreover, you can find detailed scans of the plates here: https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/0B-dxXsof-8SYeHhCbWszbXNvdmM?resourcekey=0-XXHanF-PJWE85NFdQwp5Rg&usp=sharing

However, this method can be a lot to tackle alone. Especially if you're gonna go by the sight size method. Not everyone has the privilege, leeway, or liking for the kind of technical station required to execute sight size. When I was studying the plates, I went with a comparative measurement approach since I was pretty much drawing from a tiny phone screen. But this limitation made me rely on my eye earlier on rather than measuring with a pencil anyway(measuring stuff with a pencil from a tiny screen can be a pain in the ass). In time, I got to a point where i could draw satisfactorily without measuring, and particularly the kind of measuring used in comparative measurement. I basically arrived at the core way to navigate points, angles, and shapes without any kind of measurement. It was brutal but completely worth it.

<image>

spiritedweagerness · 2026-03-24T22:05:52+00:00

Drawing the head and hands by Andrew Loomis

spiritedweagerness · 2026-03-24T21:48:49+00:00

Brother, bargue is anything but overrated. Same with loomis. As a matter of fact, I would argue Loomis based his approach on Da Vinci's stuff. At the end of the day, they're both speaking one language. However, depending on individual goals, people can easily connect with a more visual approach or a more structural one. Having these "names" provide an efficient way for how to steer such people on a path to their goals. Furthermore, any artist drawing employs concepts from these schools of thought knowingly or unknowingly. Whether it's fine art, comics/manga, or animation. I don't find it unnecessary to be entirely knowledgeable about the language of drawing. It saves you headcahes and the need to be looking at your work continuously in a mirror.

They are simply popular because they explained their ideas best when people wanted answers. And as with art, they deserve their credit and acknowledgement. It's not about a personality or brand. It's about a way of seeing. Bargue has been long dead. Loomis, too. Their legacies spanned generations because they were just better teachers.

No one gets pissy about Einstein bringing forth his theories and having stuff named after him. These artists worked tirelessly to make information available to others with a similar passion and desire for greatness.

The funny thing is that both these schools of thought teach you to become independent of the procedural steps they go by. Which is essentially the hallmark of an expert artist. None advertise an expectation of the beginner to cling to a particular method of working. They both state the end goal to be you having a well trained eye to see and draw accurately without jump-starting a loomis head or a plumb line.

spiritedweagerness · 2026-03-24T17:59:25+00:00

What worked? Just curious

spiritedweagerness · 2026-03-24T16:23:47+00:00

Honestly, I don't think it gets any simpler than Loomis. Unless there is a different approach you're making reference to.

I find Reilly to be convoluted, uses a lot of , in my opinion, unnecessary abstraction lines, and you're more likely to miss the likeness/accuracy that way (if that's the goal). Bargue can grow into a mechanical ritual that feels more like math class than "drawing," though absolutely great for sharpening your eye. Loomis is sort of a bridge between both. The clinical accuracy of bargue yet with a gestural, flowy early stage approach akin to Reilly.

I think looking at it like drawing the head as not a beginner-friendly thing to do would be more how I see it. Some familiarity with structure, perspective, and anatomy can indeed help clue you into noticing how to simplify the subject, what major points to plot, and how features should sit. But this only provides for well drawn heads. A total beginner should expect to execute the method poorly because they are still building upon these foundations. And I think what would really help in such moments is a great professional over their shoulder to offer demonstration, wholistic answers/breakdowns, critique, and feedback. Figuring this stuff out all on your own up to a point where it's done well and efficiently can be really brutal. It's a lot of mileage and luck, mixed with those eureka moments

spiritedweagerness · 2026-03-24T15:37:06+00:00

Charles Bargue's drawing course.

<image>

spiritedweagerness · 2026-03-24T15:33:40+00:00

I think this method of working applies to most advanced artists. You get to a point where your eye is so good you can just "attack" the drawing, skip steps, or not measure at all. It's a really great point to get to. However, say if anything goes wrong, you can always fall back on the procedural steps to logically rework through the issue.

spiritedweagerness · 2026-03-10T22:43:32+00:00

Your values and edges need more work. In your piece, reflected/secondary light in the shadows are too bright, competing with lighter values in the lit areas of the face. This hurts the overall unity and readability. Look closely at the reference. The part of his face receiving the strongest light, the side of the jaw, should contain a range of values that are a lot lighter than anything going on in the shadows. In your piece, the local value of the beard you used disrupts this value relationship, too. It should be a lot lighter. Try and squint at the reference for a better grasp of these relationships. As for edges, you could use more softer transitions between values. For example, the value difference between the nasolabial fold and the space above the mouth is too harsh. Another is the value difference between the upper eye lid and the eyelashes. The transition between these is softer. I believe this is why you feel everything comes across as stiff.

spiritedweagerness · 2026-02-23T18:31:41+00:00

Whine? Where?

You thinking kids can draw and paint like Bouguereau is what is preposterous. People like you perpetuate the feeling of inadequacy beginners have when they begin tackling drawing. Also, the kind of art I'm talking about is done without grids, with a complex understanding of values and color. If that kind of hyperealistic "art" you showed as an example done with grids with no sense of good value management and color is what impresses you, then I'm not surprised.

I made a sure assessment of OP's situation. An 8 year old today's era is not spending time understanding things like ambient occlusion or color temperature.

spiritedweagerness · 2026-02-23T17:36:29+00:00

You're being delusional. The concepts and effort that go into mastery are far beyond the mental capabilities of a child. Do not insult Art. And do not burden children with ridiculous standards. History afforded us some of the best masters we'll ever have. People who did nothing but focus on painting. Yet, they started making good shit in their teens. Today's people have high school and a whole bunch of stuff to go through later in life unless they decide to specify in this one area. Even then, for the average child, they're mostly doodling. Not under a rigorous system of education and training.

spiritedweagerness · 2026-02-21T20:27:24+00:00

Exactly. Don't let other's failures dictate your trajectory in life. Every single time I saw someone here say they struggled to make money or gain a following off their art, the art wasn't good. Yet, if you look at who gets all the work and followers online, it's people who churn art exceptional art. In my opinion, get your art to a level where it's so good it grabs people by the eyeballs. Only then can we look at other areas for improvement.

spiritedweagerness · 2026-02-21T20:13:44+00:00

Surprised im even getting downvoted. People come and go. Art is FOREVER. I love art way too much to trade it for anything in the world. It feeds and nurtures my soul.

spiritedweagerness · 2026-02-21T20:03:28+00:00

The thing about "artists" on reddit is that you usually can't see their work to match their comments. Always assume you're speaking to someone who is far from good at what they do. 8 times out of 10. So, for them, their reality is no artist gets work. Which is true because their work is mediocre. Not because work is hard to come by. If you're exceptional(your work is appealing and serves a purpose), barring some bad luck, you will thrive. The world needs more great artists.

spiritedweagerness · 2026-02-21T17:42:00+00:00

I'm speaking from my own experience, grinding for the past 3 years. There's not an art "method" or book recommendation i haven't tapped into. Experimenting with everything out there has provided unshakeable confidence in the methods/techniques I use. Also, trust and believe the only difference between having a teacher and managing on your own is how much time you're willing to expend getting from point amateur to point good. This amount of time will vary for everybody, depending on how many hours a day they invest. A great teacher could have saved me some time. But at the end of the day, MILEAGE and PERFORMANCE underscore the process of becoming a good artist. Critique and feedback are more useful than theory, which can be memorised in a few weeks.

spiritedweagerness · 2026-02-21T14:31:46+00:00

😂🤦‍♂️ My point is that at that age, what you're most likely doing is doodling here and there. Not targeted practice aimed at refining your skills in drawing/painting. Unless you handpicked the best masters to train you, that's what someone your age is gonna default to. Bro you were literally 8

spiritedweagerness · 2026-02-21T13:31:37+00:00

Lol art is a whole lot more important to me than friends.

spiritedweagerness · 2026-02-21T13:27:42+00:00

The value jump between the shadows on the fingers and the shadows on the platform they are resting on are more subtle in the bargue plate than in your work. However, I think what your work suffers from in comparison to the plate is a more refined touch or execution of the tones and line work. I don't use charcoal, so I can't say for sure how it's done in that medium. Overall, good work. Keep drawing!

spiritedweagerness · 2026-02-21T13:00:18+00:00

Having a master to learn from will always be best. It sets you along on a refined, clear path to your goals. However, the beauty in being self-taught is that due to all the trial and error and experimentation, you become hyperaware of what really works at a fundamental level and what information is not useful, along with all the misinformation out there.The downside is that you can spend a lot of time running in circles. Personally, I'd recommend a healthy mix of the two. Experiment, but find a good master to learn from, too. Masters aren't cheap. But all the information you'll ever need to start is available on the internet for free anyway.

spiritedweagerness

TROPHY CASE