Help: Drawing the Human Form
Darren Harris
draw the human form in a variety of poses? I found one good site(see
below) and would like more recommendations.
http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/farp/figure/williamlibodyconstruction.html
Thanks a lot.
Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.
Richard
On 2 Dec 2002 11:23:12 -0800, Sear...@mail.con2.com (Darren Harris)
wrote:
>Can I get recommendations on sites and books that illustrate how to
>draw the human form in a variety of poses? I found one good site(see
>below) and would like more recommendations.
Books:
Anatomy for the Artist, by Sarah Simblet
Atlas of Human Anatomy for the Artist, by Stephen Rogers Peck
Encyclopedia Anitomicae, by Gyorgy Feher
How To draw the Head and Figure, by Jack Hamm
These are among the very best available. I recommend you start out
with the book by Jack Hamm. It's cheap and good. I think it IS
important to study anatomy (bones and muscles) if you want to be a
quality draftsman of the human figure. I just recently finished
drawing a highly detailed front & back view of a human skeleton and
muscle overlays on velum. I learned a lot about the structure of the
body. My teacher said I'm already showing a marked improvement in my
figure drawings. My current life drawing homework is to make dozens of
drawings copying the best figure drawings and body parts I can find by
the old masters who lived from 1450 to 1830. I don't think
Michelangelo would have risked his health and his life to study
corpses if it weren't important to know anatomy. He got sick a number
of times from being around them.
As for poses, you can join a life drawing class at a community college
or somewhere else and you can also draw from the photos in Simblet's
book and porn pictures from the internet.
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
bruin70
understand drawing,,,and the figure will come later.
i suggest you start with the basics of drawing. the human form is
simply a series of interlocking wedges, but you might be overwhelmed
by what you perceive as complicated. if it's anatomy you're talking
about, it doesn't sound like you're there yet.....so you shouldn't
worry about that right now. what is there is there to see.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
not neglect. I disagree with his centre of gravity being in the pelvic area.
I use the centre at the base of the neck.
k
Darren Harris <Sear...@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
news:9437a27c.02120...@posting.google.com...
Roadside Artist
brain, rather than our bodies. We have plenty of brain space devoted to the
recognition of the most minute differences from person to person; it's how
we tell each other apart! However, this creates two problems.
1. We're heavily wired with expectations about how people look. You may be
able to recognize a loved one or a familiar face with little more than a the
image of a nose appearing from around the corner or an ear seen over the
shoulder. Your brain has the information to fill in what's missing, and it
does so with incredible rapidity. This massive body of preconceptions is
very hard to set aside. So when it comes to drawing, it *is* the same
process as drawing a still life, as suggested, but the preconceptions
are far harder to overcome. Just keep that in mind.
2. The other problem created by our built-in facial / body recognition
software is that smaller details - things missed by the artist laboring
under by normal human preconceptions - become glaring inconsistencies in the
eye of the viewer. Often, the artist himself/herself cannot see these
relatively minor flaws even though everyone else does (due to the
aforementioned brain wiring). Outside critique helps a lot, here, and that
is another reason why Dan's suggestion of a life drawing class is right on
target. A live model is great, but just as important is peer review: People
will see things you are doing wrong when you don't see them, and you will
find mistakes in others' work that they miss. Everybody wins.
Pagani
"Darren Harris" <Sear...@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
news:9437a27c.02120...@posting.google.com...
Nerd Gerl
Roadside Artist <pag...@nospam.roadsideartist.com> wrote in article
<uuo7h4c...@corp.supernews.com>...
> The problem with drawing the human form really has to do with the human
> brain, rather than our bodies. We have plenty of brain space devoted to the
> recognition of the most minute differences from person to person; it's how
> we tell each other apart! However, this creates two problems.
>
> 1. We're heavily wired with expectations about how people look. You may be
> able to recognize a loved one or a familiar face with little more than a the
> image of a nose appearing from around the corner or an ear seen over the
> shoulder. Your brain has the information to fill in what's missing, and it
> does so with incredible rapidity. This massive body of preconceptions is
> very hard to set aside. So when it comes to drawing, it *is* the same
> process as drawing a still life, as suggested, but the preconceptions
> are far harder to overcome. Just keep that in mind.
>
> 2. The other problem created by our built-in facial / body recognition
> software is that smaller details - things missed by the artist laboring
> under by normal human preconceptions - become glaring inconsistencies in the
> eye of the viewer. Often, the artist himself/herself cannot see these
> relatively minor flaws even though everyone else does (due to the
> aforementioned brain wiring).
This part I disagree with. I used to blame my flaws on this so called
brain-wiring, but experience has shown me it is pure laziness. Nothing
more. There is no brain flaw. It's laziness.
> Outside critique helps a lot, here, and that
> is another reason why Dan's suggestion of a life drawing class is right on
> target. A live model is great, but just as important is peer review: People
> will see things you are doing wrong when you don't see them, and you will
> find mistakes in others' work that they miss.
I disagree here too. The artist is responsible for recording what is
presented before her or him. People need to slow down when
drawing/painting. What's the rush? There is laziness in rushing. There
is ego in rushing. There is "settling for what looks ok" in rushing.
But there is no quality in rushing. I, myself, am trying to calm down
and stop rushing.
> Everybody wins.
The prize?
=============
Naked Angel Art
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
>
>
>
>
>
> Pagani
>
> "Darren Harris" <Sear...@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
> news:9437a27c.02120...@posting.google.com...
Nerd Gerl
> I think it IS
> important to study anatomy (bones and muscles) if you want to be a
> quality draftsman of the human figure.
I think I've seen the result of this in a lot of fantasy hero/heroine
type artwork, where muscles are grossly exaggerated and obviously out
of place. Some artists neglecting to draw/paint what is there, and
instead, put muscle bulges or bone structures in places where they
ought not be, simply because the artist knows they are under the skin.
Instead of a portraying a convincing figure, you have a freak.
Challenge what I'm saying by looking very closely at some fantasy
(a.k.a. "awesome") artists. You will see they are victims of
anatomical study.
> As for poses, you can join a life drawing class at a community college
> or somewhere else and you can also draw from the photos in Simblet's
> book and porn pictures from the internet.
Our dear poster won't find muscles or bones from these resources. ;-)
===============
NightMist
wrote:
>On 2 Dec 2002 11:23:12 -0800, Sear...@mail.con2.com (Darren Harris)
>wrote:
>
>>Can I get recommendations on sites and books that illustrate how to
>>draw the human form in a variety of poses? I found one good site(see
>>below) and would like more recommendations.
>
>Books:
>Anatomy for the Artist, by Sarah Simblet
>Atlas of Human Anatomy for the Artist, by Stephen Rogers Peck
>Encyclopedia Anitomicae, by Gyorgy Feher
>How To draw the Head and Figure, by Jack Hamm
>
>These are among the very best available. I recommend you start out
>with the book by Jack Hamm. It's cheap and good.
Personally I don't fancy Hamm's book though I own a copy. Too static,
I usually recommend the Hogarth books instead.
>I think it IS
>important to study anatomy (bones and muscles) if you want to be a
>quality draftsman of the human figure. I just recently finished
>drawing a highly detailed front & back view of a human skeleton and
>muscle overlays on velum. I learned a lot about the structure of the
>body.
Absolutely.
I see way too many drawings where it is obvious that the artist had no
clue about human anatomy. While I wince at the bulging muscles that
just aren't there in the human body when I see them, I usually find
myself wishing that people had knowledge of the skeletal system more
often than the musculature. Limbs at impossible angles and degrees of
flex, totally incomprehensable joint structures, lack of ribs or an
overabundance thereof....don't even get me started on bizarre cranial
structures.
Barbara
--
everybody is somebodys chew toy
Chris
"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:FWTG9.205491$oRV....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> I checked out the site you referenced. It's good basic stuff that you
should
> not neglect. I disagree with his centre of gravity being in the pelvic
area.
> I use the centre at the base of the neck.
>
> k
Do you find that you fall down alot?
Chris
Mr. Tudball
Ignore these fools who tell you that you can make convincing,
compelling drawings without an understanding of what lies beneath the
surface of the figure.
Their laziness and unwillingness to fully undertake the task of
learning anatomy will haunt them for the rest of their lives every time
they attempt to render the figure. Take a look at their drawings and
judge for yourself. Mushy soft forms that may as well be made of
marshmallow.
Anyone can render the form, model it in light and shadow and come up
with an illusion.
Your aim should be much higher, so stay on track in your studies.
Bridgeman's Complete Guide to Drawing from Life is an excellent text
with over 1000 illustrations that teaches one system of breaking the
complex forms of the figure into simple masses, then rebuilding the form
that you see using anatomical knowledge combined with observation of the
model.
In this one book you will learn how to see the masses of the figure
and effectively translate them to paper. All technical considerations of
figure drawing are covered.
Equipped with this knowledge you will be infinitely more prepared to
tackle the enormous task of successfully rendering an academic figure
drawing than these dolts who tell you that anatomy isn't important.
And nerd girl, an understanding of anatomy isn't what produces these
crappy superheroesque drawings you mention. It's exactly the opposite.
By understanding what lies beneath the surface of the figure you will
learn what to omit, as well as what to include.
If you just want basic outlines of a warped figure shaped like a
naked angel made of limp spaghetti, by all means, please continue
drawing without an understanding of anatomy.
darren, if your goal is to learn to draw the figure in the academic
tradition, Bridgeman's is a good start. It is equally important to study
the great draftsmen, michaelangelo, leonardo, pontormo, sargent, zorn,
prud'hon, rembrandt and numerous others. By studying great drawings you
will learn what makes a beautiful drawing.
Good luck. You will be rewarded for your study.
Had I chosen the easy route, my paintings wouldn't be moving so quickly
out of my dealer's gallery and certainly not for the enormous price they
command.
It's up to you. There is a world of medeocre artists who will tell
you academic study is unnecessary. If your goal is to produce the finest
quality work, you have to work at the craft.
Anatomy is just one small facet of the entire craft. It is, however,
an essential jewel in the crown.
probably much more long winded than necessary, but I like to ramble
about these things.
-j
Richard
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 17:54:54 -0600 (CST), Mr_Tu...@webtv.net (Mr.
Tudball) wrote:
> If you just want basic outlines of a warped figure shaped like a
>naked angel made of limp spaghetti, by all means, please continue
>drawing without an understanding of anatomy.
Ouch!
Here's one more little thing: Mosby's interactive skeleton. It's a
piece of software that shows you the human skeleton in 3D computer
renderings that you can rotate and look at in any angle. It gives you
a much better idea of the shape of all the bones than looking at
drawings in anatomy books. Unfortunately, it doesn't have the muscles.
I wish it did.
I also bought a visible woman model kit for $13. I don't know if this
kit will help my drawing or not, but I bought it because I got really
interested in it because of my homework assignment to draw the human
skeleton and muscles. I don't have a full size skeleton to look at,
but at least I have this.
Nerd Gerl
<5515-3DE...@storefull-2198.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
> darren,
>
> Ignore these fools who tell you that you can make convincing,
> compelling drawings without an understanding of what lies beneath the
> surface of the figure.
You can! And those who say otherwise are full of shit. You draw a car.
Are you going to be stupid enough to "draw" its frame? It's motor? You
draw an apple. You gonna be stupid enough to "draw" it's core and
seeds? Get a clue.
> Their laziness and unwillingness to fully undertake the task of
> learning anatomy will haunt them for the rest of their lives every time
> they attempt to render the figure. Take a look at their drawings and
> judge for yourself. Mushy soft forms that may as well be made of
> marshmallow.
Sounds like you have an *issue* with your *own* body. 'Shamed of your
mushy parts? LOL
> Anyone can render the form, model it in light and shadow and come up
> with an illusion.
NEWSFLASH: ALL art is an illusion.
> Your aim should be much higher, so stay on track in your studies.
>
> Bridgeman's Complete Guide to Drawing from Life is an excellent text
> with over 1000 illustrations that teaches one system of breaking the
> complex forms of the figure into simple masses, then rebuilding the form
> that you see using anatomical knowledge combined with observation of the
> model.
> In this one book you will learn how to see the masses of the figure
> and effectively translate them to paper. All technical considerations of
> figure drawing are covered.
>
> Equipped with this knowledge you will be infinitely more prepared to
> tackle the enormous task of successfully rendering an academic figure
> drawing than these dolts who tell you that anatomy isn't important.
>
> And nerd girl, an understanding of anatomy isn't what produces these
> crappy superheroesque drawings you mention. It's exactly the opposite.
> By understanding what lies beneath the surface of the figure you will
> learn what to omit, as well as what to include.
> If you just want basic outlines of a warped figure shaped like a
> naked angel made of limp spaghetti, by all means, please continue
> drawing without an understanding of anatomy.
Dude - I don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps if you were
sober?
> darren, if your goal is to learn to draw the figure in the academic
> tradition, Bridgeman's is a good start. It is equally important to study
> the great draftsmen, michaelangelo, leonardo, pontormo, sargent, zorn,
> prud'hon, rembrandt and numerous others. By studying great drawings you
> will learn what makes a beautiful drawing.
Many many many many many of Michaelangelo's and Leonard'os and
Shit-For-Braino's human figures are HORRENDOUSLY disfigured. LOOK at
the art you're suggesting. Are you blind? Poor little Michaelangelo's
Adam didn't even get a real pee pee. His David was abnormally
short-changed too. I mean, with hands that size, he should have ...
nevermind. Damned near everyone of Leonardo's females look like
ex-body builders. And the skin on Rembrandt's figure looks like it
belongs to aging corpses!
Wait -
Why do you recommend these people? Is this a trick suggestion? Some
sort of sick philosophy I'm unaware of? I never heard of Pontormo or
Sargent or Zorn. Sounds like that last one was made up! If they're
anything like the others you "recommend", I don't wanna know 'em.
> Good luck. You will be rewarded for your study.
> Had I chosen the easy route, my paintings wouldn't be moving so quickly
> out of my dealer's gallery and certainly not for the enormous price they
> command.
Give me your real name. I can show everyone here in about 5 seconds if
you're telling the truth.
> It's up to you. There is a world of medeocre artists who will tell
> you academic study is unnecessary. If your goal is to produce the finest
> quality work, you have to work at the craft.
> Anatomy is just one small facet of the entire craft. It is, however,
> an essential jewel in the crown.
>
> probably much more long winded than necessary, but I like to ramble
> about these things.
>
> -j
Why do you pretend to hide?
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
allows for evaluation of chest weight movement on overall balance - using
the pelvic region does not allow for such evaluation.
Check out Bridgman's Life Drawing - the section on Balance. There are a few
smart people that post to RAF but they are outnumbered by the smart ass
posting fools.
k
Chris <n...@this.address> wrote in message
news:Nb7H9.19947$wy.17...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Chris
> Chris: using the centre of the neck base as the centre of gravity point
> allows for evaluation of chest weight movement on overall balance - using
> the pelvic region does not allow for such evaluation.
>
> Check out Bridgman's Life Drawing - the section on Balance. There are a
few
> smart people that post to RAF but they are outnumbered by the smart ass
> posting fools.
I'd say we are even more seriously outnumbered by people who read, but can't
think.
Here's an easy test. Take a plomb line - any shortish string with a weight
on it works ok - and hold it at the pit of the neck (FWIW, that, not the
base, is where Bridgeman says the center of mass is located). Now, from a
standing position with your feet together lean as far forward as possible
withouth falling. If you can do this so that the weight falls well in front
of your feet, then your center of mass cannot lie along that line; the
center of mass must stay above some part that is in contact with the ground
for you not to fall over. If your center of gravity is in the pit of your
neck, then you will fall.
Bridgeman's statement (I have the books, and generally like them) is just
simly wrong. But he's in good company that way - even Aristotle made foolish
comments along the same lines (i.e. that men have more teeth and ribs than
women) that were just based on a failure to observe, and Bridgeman's was
probably well intentioned. Your error, on the other hand, is more serious -
it's a blind acceptance of authority without observing and reasoning for
oneself.. Vote Liberal/NDP by any chance ?
Cheers;
Chris
Chris
and need not even lie within the body. In modern high jump style ("the
flop"), for example, the body passes over the bar, the center of gravity
passes underneath. Cute, huh?
Chris
"Chris" <n...@this.address> wrote in message
news:1U0I9.780$jm6....@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Chris
> Chris: using the centre of the neck base as the centre of gravity point
> allows for evaluation of chest weight movement on overall balance - using
> the pelvic region does not allow for such evaluation.
>
And why not? Does the body itself care about where you think the center of
gravity is? Of course not. So why do you have to pretend it is where it is
not in order to evaluate it? And what's all this blather about chest weight
movement?
BTW Keith - it just struck me you probably don't know what the center of
gravity actually is. It isn't something you can arbitrarily assign wherever
you want, it is a property of the body itself (or more formally the center
of mass is; the center of gravity also depends the gravitational field one
is in. But here on Earth they are pretty much the same. As a new arrival,
you may not be aware of that). Why don't you come up to the front of the
class and define it for us?
Chris
Jiri Borsky
> A major difference between abstract and figurative art is that abstract art
> does not involve illusion.
Would I be right in saying that abstract art replaces illusion with allusion?
Jiri Borsky
John Rune
HEY, NOBODY LIKES A SMART-ASS!
LOL,
John the Red
NightMist
>nerd...@rcip.com (Nerd Gerl) wrote:
>>>
>> You can! And those who say otherwise are full of shit. You draw a car.
>> Are you going to be stupid enough to "draw" its frame? It's motor? You
>> draw an apple. You gonna be stupid enough to "draw" it's core and
>> seeds? Get a clue.
>
>Gerl -
>
>The practice of drawing first bones, then muscles, then the external form
>of a figure has long been replaced in most art schools by simply learning
>to draw what you see. I learned the 'old-fashioned way,' but I'm not sure
>it's any better for most work. It *is* better if you only get a quick look
>at a figure (if you're drawing on the subway, for example, or at the
>beach), then have to fill in the rest.
>
Thank God other people are better at expressing themselves verbally
than I! Now I can discard that entirely too long discourse I had
written about this....
I will add that in addition to drawing from non-model models, the
knowledge of anatomy is also crucial to drawing invented figures.
While I do draw and paint from life whenever the opportunity presents,
the vast majority of figures in my drawings and paintings are created
straight out of my brain. I will use reference photos of people in
similar poses perhaps, but that is about it so far as models go. I
live in a reletively small town and it is not so easy to find willing
models as many people would imagine (or I would like).
Darren Harris
mind that I want to draw, and they do happen to fall withing the
sci-fi/fantasy realm. In particular, if you can imagine the position
that a person about to be knighted by the queen is in, that is what I
have to draw. He will be facing right, but his left arm will be
extended with his hand against a flat surface.(I won't go into all the
environmental details).
Nevertheless, to comment on some of the things said in the argu-um...
debate here. There exist fantastic artwork from artist who have *not*
studied internal anatomical details, so one can only assume that it is
not a prerequisite for learning to do quality work.(Now, since we are
talking about art, subjectivity prevails). I am relatively familiar
with the striations and individual muscle groups that you normally
don't see except on a bodybuilder in contest shape.(I used to go to
these contests on a regular basis). And drawings showing a lot of
these anatomical details have an important niche in the comic book
world. Of course this kind of detail is not realistic as far as
everyday life is concerned, but neither is the comic book world. I
happen to love this kind of art, and developed an appreciation for it
as a kid collecting Marvel comics.(See the work of George Perez).
Nerd Gerl
I must apologize for my outburst. One day, I'll be mature. Until then,
you should expect non-lady like behavior coming from me when I witness
unenlightenment being passed onto others as wisdom.
I hope to the highest flame in hell that you find your artistic
answers.
Until then, look for a conspiracy in everything. Betcha find one!
===============
Naked Angel Art
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
Sear...@mail.con2.com (Darren Harris) wrote in message news:<9437a27c.02120...@posting.google.com>...
Darren Harris
words, and are just extremely passionate about your craft. :-)
Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.
********************************************************************************
nerd...@rcip.com (Nerd Gerl) wrote in message news:<c45b61ca.02120...@posting.google.com>...