>>5443613Some of us have been here before /pol/ was a thing.
Bammes is well known because he’s the gateway drug of a lot of artists that we would hear about growing up as they give anecdotes of who and what they learned from. Bammes’ catalogued a reasonable way to approximate and build the body with a sculptural mindset that beginners can understand. He also used one of the better systems of proportions that isn’t really discussed that often.
But none of what Bammes covered was new, and he never did anything with it. Like Bridgman, Bammes remained a teacher of artistic anatomy throughout his life. I am not sure why Bammes disparaged Loomis in his book - did he think that Loomis didn’t know anatomy? I’d argue Loomis, through the volume of his work and his over all attitude, was a far better draftsman than Bammes, and he was something Bammes could never attain: an artist. If Loomis’ approach to how he simplified his figures somehow felt ignorant to Bammes, then that’s a matter of taste. But Loomis is so far removed from being a meme that it’s not even worth asking if you can learn from him. So again, the only thing I can say about Bammes-Loomis is there’s envy at play that one guy succeeded to a level where the other didn’t.
Make no mistake, people do hold life long grudges of those more successful than them. That one rising artist (Godward?) committing suicide because Picasso took the throne shows the depth of depravity in the mind of a want-to-be artist.
