Why does eveyone hate Burne Hogarth?

[Sphyzex_9]

It seems like whenever his books are brought up they're dismissed. I think while there are better insrtuctors out there, he offers a uniuqe way of learning that can't hurt to take from. I don't see why this guy should be ignored.

[Zazerzs]

they don't, lots of folks here love him.

although I'm not one of em

personally i think hes to "slick" and prefer other sources like Bridgman,Hale,Vanderpol ect. but if he works for ya and you like how he presents the material then use it.

[Elwell]

"Everybody" doesn't. Some people do, and are vocal about it. I think he's a mixed bag. Dynamic Figure Drawing is probably his best book, and has good info on inventing figures. On the other hand, some of his anatomical and proportional schemata are very... non-standard, shall we say.

[JParrilla]

i think he has good information to offer. I just get distracted by his "bubbly" musculature. He adds a very stylistic shading to his figures.. they seem almost metallic at times. Every muscle seems like a bulge. I think as long as you dont take it as the end all be all of figure drawing books.. there is some good info to take from him. Hey.. Marko Djurdjevic used his books and he turned out pretty good Its just a matter of knowing what to take and what to leave

[Nightblue]

"Everybody" doesn't. Some people do, and are vocal about it. I think he's a mixed bag. Dynamic Figure Drawing is probably his best book, and has good info on inventing figures. On the other hand, some of his anatomical and proportional schemata are very... non-standard, shall we say.

I don't guess this is the same book with dynamic anatomy... I might have to check this out.

Personally, Hogarth's style distract me. His proportions are often strange, and his lines and shapes lack... rhythm? I think... I did find his book on fabric folds rather helpful though.

[FourTonMantis]

Its just a matter of knowing what to take and what to leave

Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if the musculature is exaggerated on his figures to help you see where they all are. They sure helped me. I think a good idea if you're going to use his stuff is to do it but balance it out with the likes of Bridgman and Loomis mixed with photo studies. That way you get a broad spectrum of how different artists interpret the figure.

[Arshes Nei]

Hogarth has good concepts on the figure in perspective and making it dynamic. Using him as a way to learn artist's anatomy hasn't been good for me. Using him as a way to understand foreshortening has been more helpful.

I learned you never really rely on one book, get your hands on as many books as possible, you'll find that libraries will often have books no longer in print or a wealth of info you may not get with current books these days. Plus, you save money instead of trial and error with purchasing books.

Even Jack Hamm's book on figure drawing covers some things other books don't or he makes something that "clicks" with me in understanding. One good example is Hamm's book covers clavicles and shoulder lines a little bit better than I've seen in other books. most usually go to a "default" shoulder and neck line while Hamm shows several different variations.

As you progress you'll find books better or worse for you. Also keep in mind that people tend to have a fondness for Nostalgia in a sense. If someone got into drawing and that was their first book they used, there will be some fondness for it no matter what. I still have a distinct fondness for those "Draw 50 dogs" or other animal books as such.

[CCThrom]

Hogarth worked very well for me at one time... his stylizations helped me to understand many things better... if it sounds like I dismiss him nowadays, it's only because as I learn more I become more aware of the flaws in his approach.

He's certainly not bad, he's just more specialized and less universal than he would like you to think. Using a variety of sources is still the best approach.

[kev ferrara]

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:

[aefx]

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, hidden nazi imagery?

[Farvus]

Maybe he was influenced by ancient egyptian art .

[~Faust~]

The reason I love and recommend Hogarth is not because of his ability to create realistic anatomy. Of course not. But what he does give you is a guideline that leaves room for your own imagination. Something that you can layer over and on top of the foundation that you're getting from studying him. Also, another thing that makes Hogarth special to me is his courage for daring poses and outrageous perspectives. I find that he gives you enough room to play with the human body as you like and wish and I think that it's detrimental to our own progression that we lose the fear of complicated stuff. That being said, realism can be easily plastered over a skillful foundational drawing. That part needs observational skills and not an anatomy book.


Cheers

M

Quoted because I suck at anatomy, but Marko D. doesn't

[Raileyh]

I remember being dazzled by Hogarth and copying his drawings. His teachings have their purpose, but it's important for anyone learning to draw the figure to use a cross reference of books and instructors.

Recently I had a student that heavily used Hogarth's books and I could tell in class. I stood behind him and asked one word, "Hogarth?". He looked up bewildered and said,"yes". It took constant unlearning to get the student to move past what he recognized as 'right' and onto other ways of translating, and constructing the figure, so his drawings could be his and show his skill and learning.

It takes many tools to build a house, Hogarth can be seen as one tool. A very small tool, maybe a mini wrench or one of those pointy pliers.

-H

[Chris Saksida]

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.

[pegasi]

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

[Parka81]

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.

[Kaycy is tanning]

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.

[Kaycy is tanning]

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

[cdejong]

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.

[Kaycy is tanning]

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.

[Camilla]

... 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.

[VulgarDragon]

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.

[kingshaj]

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.

[Gokce]

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.

[dierat]

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.

[Black Spot]

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.

[Line]

You never really learn from one source. You have to consider that perhaps Hogarth had a different 'market' than Bridgeman for example. It's pretty much the same with those 'Draw the Marvel way' books, you can't expect to learn how to paint or learn great anatomy from them.

Also, a book is never ever enough. It is only the finger pointing to the moon as Bruce Lee put it, you ultimately HAVE to study from the model. Let's not forget the example of the great Hal Foster who learned anatomy by sketching himself using a mirror! No books, no nothing!

Hogarth has his place in art, and he always will, he's offered alot. You just, as has been mentioned, have to understand and know what to use, and when.

By the way I loved the hidden nazi imagery joke.

[Kamber Parrk]

Really now! "Hatred" is perhaps an emotion best reserved for those things that deserve it, such as injustice, genocide, rape, etc!

"Resentment" perhaps best expresses my feelings toward Mr. Hogarth.

Why? Because he's a piss-poor writer!

In "Dynamic Figure Drawing" he never really gets around to telling you HOW to draw a friggin head. It's all narrative about the appearance of the "ball and wedge"-- not a clue on how to construct said structures.

Better question: did Hogarth rip off Loomis' "ball and plane" treatment of the head, then proceed to do a crappy job of explaining it?

[mutestar]

What I would say is that it's good for adding certain skills to your repertoire. I wouldn't recommend it as the first book for anyone, but he does have something to offer. In particular, I'm drawn to it because I'm looking to get more elasticity and exaggeration in my drawings. So I'd say that it's probably better for drawing exaggerated cartoons where they do squash and stretch, but less useful than others for trying to learn a foundation anatomy.

[OmenSpirits]

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeccccccccc ccccccccrrrrrrrrrrrrrrooooooooooooooooooooo