So why not so much emphasis on animal anatomy?

[Black Sun]

I understand that, to the professional illustrator and concept artist, knowing human anatomy is extremely important, and that it can take years to master. But I don't understand why it seems to be more important than animal anatomy? I may be wrong about this assumption, this is just something that I noticed.

When I look at drawings and paintings of some creatures/animals/monsters, even some on the pro level, there are anatomical mistakes, some glaringly obvious, and people don't seem to mind. Why is that?

I'm saying this partially because I want to be a wildlife illustrator(among other things), and I personally consider excellent animal anatomy to be as equally important as human. Why, I could make a whole other topic on just how important stance is!

I'll post examples when I can gather a few together. Did anyone else notice this, or do I just need more sleep?

[OTTA]

Let's read more on this board, You'll find that everything is important when you're going to draw something. Not only humanoid anatomy, Creature is the same. We can't design weird animal without knowing basic one. But you must know something, not everyone that is good at everything, We have a good point & bad point in ourselves. The guy you notice ha may good at humanoid drawing, but weak at animal drawing. :D someone here is good at animal but weak at humanoid, That is very usual in this world man.

Someone draw not good anatomy, but can make it good & clear his concept to the other. May be that's good enough to be an artist right? we are not a doctor or science to know exact what part it is, isn't it?

[HunterKiller_]

We are human, we see a lot of humans. Mistakes in human anatomy can be obvious to anybody, artist or not. Mistakes in animal anatomy, not so much.

[riceface]

i refuse to learn animals cuz we have google.. i get the basic idea of how an animal looks like

[Gerulaitis]

With lots of very weird animalistic concotions around, correct anatomy is just asking too much. Not everyone is a comparative anatomy genius, not everyone knows how anatomy actually works, most barely take the "shape" and "texture" of several animals and stick them together, not worrying about how the organism would actually function and evolve, how it'd move, etc. With some assignments, correct anatomy just isn't possible, because (not surprising, if taken a minute to consider the description's plausibility) no similar creature exists (cthulhu anyone? humanoid with an octopus-like head? oh please... what does it need tentacles for when it has hands with opposable thumbs? why and HOW the squishy head on a rigid skeleton? it jumps off a box and the spinal column makes a milkshake out his brains... sure, now call it a "monster" rather than a "creature" just so you have a "magic" excuse for it being a sloppy design.). Sometimes there's just not enought time for thinking through every anatomical detail of 200 creatures due tommorrow (most almost random bunches of shapes quickly slapped together in alchemy). When all of them have to be unique and original, correct anatomy is just too much of a constraint, best left for fleshing the design out... if it's possible at all.

For short: there's too much pressure on originality, too little on solid functional design.
(I guess same could be said about next to any concept art field - aircraft/vehicles, environments, even characters at times. "Cool" is overrated.)

That, and what HunterKiller and Otta said.

Now that you mention it. I don't think i've ever seen an alternate design of a light-runner-type ungulate that looked like it'd really work.

[EDIT] P.S.: And I hope riceface was being ironic.

[sodAp]

I'm saying this partially because I want to be a wildlife illustrator(among other things), and I personally consider excellent animal anatomy to be as equally important as human. Why, I could make a whole other topic on just how important stance is!

Then I think you are very wrong. If you want to be a wildlife illustrator, then animal anatomy is way more important than human anatomy!

The reason of why people don't put so much emphasis on animal anatomy is because many factors, for me the most important are that people wont recognize the flaws in animal anatomy so easily as they would catch flaws in human anatomy, and that you will be painting/drawing a lot more people than animals.

For short: there's too much pressure on originality, too little on solid functional design.
(I guess same could be said about next to any concept art field - aircraft/vehicles, environments, even characters at times. "Cool" is overrated.)

I agree with this, but when I read the rest of your reply I get the feeling that you are too fundamentalist on that opinion. I prefer a cool design with some flaws that a handful of experts will notice, as oposed to a boring one which is just perfect and could work in the real word or in the enviroment it was designed for. It's like the difference between a photo and a painting, the good thing about the painting is that it's not necessarily real or true. There are some things that are slightly off proportion, lighting conditions that aren't realistic, idealization, etc. You have to sacrifice something and find a balance. Cool is more important than True. Imho the artist has to give the illusion that it would work, not make it work.

As with everything, you have to find the balance, the best of both worlds.

[bhanu]

refuse to learn animals cuz we have google.. i get the basic idea of how an animal looks like

wait... cant you get pics of people on google??????

[Gerulaitis]

Imho the artist has to give the illusion that it would work, not make it work.
Exactly. Here I fully agree with you.
The problem is that sometimes it gets so ridiculous... it fails to convince. Or the artist lacks the skills/knowledge to make it convincing. That's the difference between a good design and a bad one. Good design has to have a ground in the "true" to be convincing, imho. That's why we look at familliar animals when inventing new ones in the first place.

"Cool over functional" is ok with me, atleast until it gets out of hand and we have a pile of blubbery bs with spikes and teeth sticking out for effect with no grounding or reason whatsoever. If that is still "cool", it's the kind of "cool" when you put sunglasses and a black trenchcoat on a scarcrow... move closer and the illusion dissipates for a humorous effect - you can't look at it seriously again.

Frankly, this is easier to notice on creatures, than technology (props, vehicles, architecture), for instance, because most creatures (atleast on earth)(and if math of biologists holds true - mostly any other world with a similar chemistry) follow the same basic plan - variations in proportions make the species, and their design is built to be efficient for whatever function they're suited for, and this efficiency is usually apparent (look at a leg of a runner animal - muscles at the very top, tendons on the lower leg, to make the legs lighter and more agile, thus resulting in more efficient design; make the legs of a runner animal thick and it'll fail to convince. You don't need an expert to tell you that a gazelle with elephant legs doesn't look like a fast runner.). If you do something totally off (flying pigs), chances are it'll fail to convince, unless you have a convincing explination for it (ya know, they have this huge sack on their bellies where they collect hydrogen they get by eating airborne plankton (don't ask - it's an alien world) - living zeppelins of sorts, keep away from fire).

[Sway West]

Equine creatures with accordion legs come to mind.

:mod:

[J Wilson]

We as humans are much more critical of human representations. Look at movies like Beowulf. That whole movie bothered me because I just didn't think the humans looked real enough (and they tried. Movies where they don't try for realism look much much better).

Animal anatomy we don't spend so much time obsessing over like we do how we or other humans look. We just don't care as much.

However, I do think it should be more important than it often is. When I was a kid I loved Boris because he painted cool people, but even then I knew his dragons and monsters didn't look as convincing. His anatomy was often fine, but it just didn't have the same level of knowledge that he put into the weight lifters and sexy women.

[riceface]

not everyone knows how anatomy actually works, most barely take the "shape" and "texture" of several animals and stick them together, not worrying about how the organism would actually function and evolve, how it'd move, etc

hmm u touched on something interesting.. books always stell u to use basic shapes and crap to build a character or animal.... i found this impossible.. i gave up as a young artist doing blocks thinkin it was the right thing to do..

just roughly sketching things and refining the drawing works way better for me at least.. fuck blocks

[nancy_kelpie]

I agree with all the others that mistakes in animal anatomy aren't as obvious as human anatomy mistakes.

There are a lot of people though who do study the animal anatomy (I know a lot, but weird enough none on this forum). I'm starting my freelance illustrator career in january and my main focus will be on animals.

I've talked to some other illustrators and they told me there was no way I could get enough projects with just animals to make a living, most projects will involve drawing people. So drawing people is important, even if you draw animals. For example the client might need a drawing of a dog with his owner, or a drawing of a fox being chased by a hunter on a horse. Saying you can't draw people is a big "no" as an illustrator as most projects will involve a human. Personally I think people are harder to draw, so need more practise.


Anyway, you can find animal sketches in my sketchbook, and if someone else has a sketchbook with a lot of animals in it too, please tell me and I will subscribe to your sketchbook :)

[armando]

Most mammals have similar skeletal structure. If you know human anatomy, you can change it around enough to work as a different animal. It's also important to know the difference in structure between predators and prey, the only book I know of that has that is Gottfried Bammes's "Artist's guide to animal anatomy".

Animals are covered with fur, so their bones and muscles aren't as obvious. Interesting to note that humans are usually covered with clothes. Shapes, proportions, values, and colors are more important than scientific anatomy.

Animals don't hold poses, can't get them to pose at life drawing.

Difficult to find many resources on it.

Exact scientific anatomy is neccessary for scientific illustration. Concept art, and illustration are more about moods, stories, not "does that guy have exactly 24 vertebraes?".

[Black Sun]

I see what you're all saying. I do study comparative anatomy, and sometimes I forget that other people don't necessarily see things the same way I do. A lot of interesting pints where brought up that I never thought of. Thanks everyone who commented!



i refuse to learn animals cuz we have google.. i get the basic idea of how an animal looks like

I'm sorry but that made me lol.

[Elwell]

Most mammals have similar skeletal structure. If you know human anatomy, you can change it around enough to work as a different animal. It's also important to know the difference in structure between predators and prey, the only book I know of that has that is Gottfried Bammes's "Artist's guide to animal anatomy".
True to a degree, but humans are pretty bizarre tetrapods. One of the most common problems I see with creature designs is people trying to apply what they know about human anatomy to different body plans. One should at least have a familiarity with some quadruped anatomy. A horse and a lion have a lot more in common anatomically than either does with a human.

[Grief]

there are reasons you do not attempt to cross over the anatomy.

but don't click (http://members.iinet.net.au/~reynardfx/Artwork/Volk&tal.jpg) this.

what you clicked it? ugh, go boil your genitals and shave your eyes. youre lucky i posted a tame picture.

[Vermis]

Animals are covered with fur

Which goes to show that some of the best respected posters on this forum can still drop some real clangers.

I'm not completely happy with Insect's reply. For one, I'm not sure if Fetid's 'animal illustration' automatically translates to 'creature design'.
Secondly, while animal (+ comparative, + functional) anatomy is different to and obviously a lot more varied than human anatomy, and 'verisimilitude' is one of my favourite words; I think you're making any study of it out to be a much more complicated and thankless task than it is. I personally think a little knowledge goes a long way.

Also, sodAp and J Wilson touch on the matter that people don't care enough about animal anatomy to notice mistakes. Speaking as someone with a strong interest in natural history I'm probably biased, but I don't fully agree with that, either. How many of us have pets, or see livestock, or go to the zoo, or watch nature documentaries? I agree that people won't care as much, and are going to notice more mistakes in human anatomy because we see the real thing all the time; but at the same time we're not completely ignorant of the way animals, or familiar mammals at least, are put together and move. Even if it's just faint little subconscious alarm bells that say 'that's not right, somehow'.
I came up with that little speech 'cos I also have an interest in wargaming and roleplaying miniatures, where animal anatomy and creature design can be truly dire. Set a lot of big, conscious alarm bells off. And it seems the more real-life the creature (i.e. cavalry horses, war elephants and the like) the worse the sculpting, for the most part. As if some sculptors didn't even look at one photo of the subject. It convinced me that thinking animal anatomy doesn't matter so much, doesn't lead to great results. It made me feel quite strongly about the matter.
That, and I want to run away with Terryl Whitlatch.

Nancy: I had a sketchbook with animals and things but, to misuse sodAp and J Wilson's words, it was tough getting people to care. There's more of a community for that kind of thing on DA, interestingly. Anyway. Here (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=110263). I might add more to it soon.

And Elwell speaks truth.

And Grief: I'd rather boil your genitals. ;)

[nancy_kelpie]

Nancy: I had a sketchbook with animals and things but, to misuse sodAp and J Wilson's words, it was tough getting people to care. There's more of a community for that kind of thing on DA, interestingly. Anyway. Here. I might add more to it soon.

Yeah.. I do two things people here on CA aren't very interested in. Vectors and animals, lol. But as long I do get some comments I will keep posting :)

I also have a DA account, but also rarely get comments there (and never "critiques"), but that's probably because I also don't comment much on other people there.

I really like your sketchbook !! I've subscribed in case you decide to update it again :)