>>3215056>Is this a terrible approach?Yes. In my opinion, you couldn't do anything worse. The whole point of refining your perception and capability of rendering an impression you have of a person or object is completely lost, if you use schematics.
If you think someone has a remarkable chin line from a certain angle, you have a point to start working from! why would you want to disturb your perception by using these crutches? boxes, spheres and "correct" measuring. it's bullshit. there IS no correct measuring like Loomis tries to make you believe. almost every face is asymmetrical, and that's just one thing.
you look at the portraits by Egon Schiele and there's a good reason why there are no retarded spheres and hemisphere lines to measure "where the ear is supposed to be".
you draw heads and faces form all angles. all kinds of people, all kinds of different hairstyle and shapes. when i see a face that fascinates me, i sometimes just sit there and look at it and try to figure out what it is that draws my attention. i have such good memory that i can go home and make a decent sketch of that face in hindsight. all that is coming from practice.
when you've had enough practice, the distance between your motive and the image you create becomes shorter and shorter. you want to develope a good eye that keeps a solid after-image of what you've seen so that you can work freely and with confidence.
but even after almost ten years, i still only dare say that i've merely scratched the surface of what painting can be. and especially how i can deal with it and what i can bring to it.
Loomis teaches you how to get quick, pleasing results. once you think that every head is a sphere with a fixed ratio of where ears, nose and eyes belong, it's hard to shake that bullshit from your mind and create your own works.
you can feel this kind of distraction that result from these tricks. it's in the drawing. like a bad actor, the drawing won't leave a lasting impression.
