 |
| Diana |
 |
| Jill |
For our second attempt at portrait drawing, we employed the methods of illustrator Andrew Loomis. Starting with a sphere, locating the length between brow and nose and then establishing the remaining two-thirds of the proportions before addressing the contours and features. Both drawings exhibit a large scale portrait well proportioned to the dimensions of the paper. The planes of the face have been well addressed and value has aided in locating their placement. Diana's drawing skillfully illustrates how the hair sets over the head like a hat. Jill has created a very soft drawing emphasizing the the eyes, gently balanced with the shadow under the chin wrapping around behind the ear.
I find it difficult to believe either one of these people used the Loomis Method, since the Loomis method is designed to ensure the correct placement of the features. You use the Loomis method to avoid having drawings where the eyes are located three-quarters the way up the face.
ReplyDeleteI agree, these do not look like the loomis method at all. The eyes are drawn on flat planes, the heads look like they were pressed out by an iron. The loomis method gives things a three dimensional shape, along with proper measurements. If proper measurements were made, there would be physically no reason for the features to be as incorrect as they are.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Loomis be rolling in his grave
ReplyDeletejesus there are absolutely 0 proportions
ReplyDeletei will see this in nightmares
I had to check that this wasn't an April Fool's hoax, but alas, it is not. Seeing as this is a serious post, I shall respond as such.
ReplyDeleteThere is little good about these portraits. The proportions are out of whack. The values and planes of the face are also poorly done. Diana's nose is far too long. Eyebrows are far too fine (assuming she is attempting to draw a man). Hair does not sit 'like a hat' - far from it, and what Diana has produced is a character who appears to be wearing a poorly fitting wig.
Both Diana and Jill are guilty of poor values, poor proportions, symbol drawing.
This is not a good demonstration of results gained from the Loomis method. This is beginner level, and should be treated as such.
I sincerely hope that you are not, in fact, teaching anyone how to draw. The fact that you can consider these good examples and sing praises that aren't there, only proves that you have no business educating anyone on art.
If you want to learn the Loomis method, by someone who can teach, I suggest you look up Proko on You Tube and practise - a lot.
There are 13-year-old kids on Deviantart who are better equipped than you, to provide art advice.
the face is hard to draw learn them how to draw easy shapes and the anatomy of the head and let them practice
ReplyDeleteThese look awful. Are you sure you used the Loomis method? You might wanna watch some Proko videos
ReplyDeleteIt's hilarious/alarming these come up when looking up "Loomis method". The web is full of useful and top-of-the-line examples but these are by far the worst ones... ever.
ReplyDeleteAmong many things, art is about respecting other artists, but the author of these is not making it easy, especially when they are attempting to "skillfully" illustrate something they clearly don't master even at the most mundane level. This blog goes back to early 2009 and this post is from nearly one decade later, yet the improvement is practically nonexistent.
Pay no mind to the other comments, I think they're neat!
ReplyDeletewhat are you guys talking about? I think these are super good! They perfectly depict my sleep paralysis demons, 1 to 1.
ReplyDelete