Using cranium (circle), not head (oval), as basis for the proportions of the body

[manfredkooistra]

Somewhere sometime I saw a drawing illustrating a system to measure the ideal proportions of the human body based not on the head (resulting, for example, in an eight head high ideal body) but on the circle of the cranium.

I know that Mentler shows this same system in his Book of Bones (here on CA.org (http://conceptart.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1159254&postcount=323)), but I find Mentler's drawings somewhat unclear and his handwriting unreadable.

Mentler mentions that the system is old (if I read him correctly), and I know I have seen it elsewhere, so maybe some of you have seen it too and remember where or a name of an author or artist.

Please write what you remember, here. Thank you.

[Helioth]

http://acid.noobgrinder.com/Loomis/ loomis uses circles for heads sometimes, as in babies, and as bodies are measured with heads, I thought you might mean him?
Although, he's hardly an obscure OR old source.

erm, I guess ask mentler, he might know!
If you really take so much issue with his handwriting etc.

[Arshes Nei]

If I remember correctly the circle was also used for the Golden Mean... http://www.phantomgallery.64g.ru/pyramid/pyr1en.htm

[manfredkooistra]

Hmm, thanks so far, but no, I did not mean Loomis nor the Golden Mean.

[Obe_Bradford]

You could just get a reference image (a photo would probably be best since the proportions would be correct) and draw over the image and do the calculations yourself, since all you'd have to do would be get a rough cranium size, which (if you're doing proportions), wouldn't be difficult to just draw over a photo.

[manfredkooistra]

Hey Obe, thanks for your reply.

Yes, I was trying exactly that - taking the proportions from photos - when I realized how difficult that was. Because most photographic images are in fact very distorted. Try and find images of the same model, one where the camera was held at knee height of the model, and one where the camera was held at chest or head height. These are regular angles for nude photos, so it should not be difficult to find something like that from a popular model from a site like Hegre-Art or Femjoy. What you will realize is that in the photo taken from worm's eye view the legs are much longer in relation to head size than on the photo from eye level!

The problem with taking proportions from photographs is that most photographers stand close enough to the model to cause some serious distortion on the resulting image. We do not easily see this anymore, because we are so used to those images. (Just like we are used to drawings with eight head proportions while "real" six and a half or seven and a half head proportions look wrong to us in art.)

What I would need are photos taken with a telephoto lense, from far away, and the model would need to be standing in an absolutely neutral position, not favouring one leg, not turning to the side, holding the head exactly forward, not upward or downward as most models in nude photos tend to do.

And finding a photo like that is almost impossible, especially if I add that I want to work with a model whose proportions I find attractive and want to use as a model sheet for my own drawings. I would need to make a photo like that myself, find the right model, buy or lend a telephoto lense, wait until it is summer and warm enough outside (because inside I cannot get far enough away from the model to eliminate distortions) etc.

Not so easily done as said.

That's why I hope to find that someone has already done the work for me, and I know they have done it. I think in one of Robert Beverly Hale's books is a schema like that, and I am waiting for Amazon to ship those books.

And then I can look at photos and make adaptions and corrections to this schema to fit a certain model, because then I can use the upper body on one photo, the legs on another. I won't have to work with photos which may or may not be distorted, and me not knowing just how much or how little distorted they are.

For example, I realized that most people that we consider beautiful, especially women, have much longer necks that all proportional schemata that I know allow for. The neck is usually about a quarter head longer than in Loomis, Villpu, etc. etc. So I must conclude that these schemas may be wrong in other respects as well. Because if they claim to depict "ideal" bodies, they should, in my opinion, depict beauty. But they do not. The same goes for the placement of the eyes (too narrow: beautiful women have more than one eye width between the eyes), the placement of the mouth (too high up) etc.

So yes, you are right that I need to analyse what I find beautiful and make my own schema. But I hope not to have to start from nothing, but to make changes to existing "ideals". It is like building a better car: you do not start over by inventing the wheel.

Wow, that was a lot of confused rambling :-)

[briggsy@ashtons]

You're right, it's in Hale, but as far as the books go the system only makes a brief appearance in a couple of diagrams in Masterclass in Figure Drawing. He discusses the system much more fully in a set of videos that were made of one of his last anatomy courses. They are still available, but are extortionately expensive:
http://www.jo-an.com/art_video.htm

Mentler has explained the system in more detail than the Hale book in a well-illustrated and perfectly readable 17-page pdf called Proportion - Visual Relationships of the Human Form, which he is selling for a few bucks.

[manfredkooistra]

Now, thank you, Briggsy, that was helpful.

Where does Mentler sell this PDF? I couldn't find it on tsofa.com.

[J Wilson]

manfredkooistra, you make a lot of good and accurrate points about the weaknesses of photos for this sort of thing. I'd think, however, that shooting a model from across a large room with a standard lense would be good enough to mitigate those camera flaws and get fairly accurate measurements. Were talking a fairly broad measuring system anyways, it doesn't need to be precise to be useful. It would change a bit from person to person anyways.

I haven't seen this system before though, so if you do find what you are looking could you post an example?

[briggsy@ashtons]

Where does Mentler sell this PDF? I couldn't find it on tsofa.com.

I'm not sure, Manfred, he very generously gave me a copy recently. Just PM him to see if it's for sale yet.

[manfredkooistra]

J Wilson, thank you. I added a link to Mentler's post here on CA.org to my first post, so look above and you'll find his example there.

Below I post what I have:

One image I found on the net (it's probably from Hale and I will confirm or deny it once the book has arrived), the other is from Laura Smith's blog "Laphoria" (http://laphoria.blogspot.com/2008/12/short-fat-and-proud-of-that.html). Smith uses squares instead of circles, but the basis for this square is the cranium.

---

Wow, how stupid and annoying is the system for categorizing these image attachments! I have no idea what techique the first artwork is, probably etching, and that is not even on the media list. Nor is there a category "anatomy" or a genre "educational". What poop!

[manfredkooistra]

Thanks again, Briggsy. I'll try and get my courage up and write Mentler. I really hope he puts his ideas together in a book. Its all so scattered on the web and much is hard to read, and I think there is so much valuable knowledge hidden in that amazing mass of posts -- it's so sad.

[Zaxser]

Thanks again, Briggsy. I'll try and get my courage up and write Mentler. I really hope he puts his ideas together in a book. Its all so scattered on the web and much is hard to read, and I think there is so much valuable knowledge hidden in that amazing mass of posts -- it's so sad.

Just read them carefully and take your time. I think the most important thing about Mentler is that, while he does have an enormous and well organized system for measuring the human form and attaching muscle to joints, he also does teeny ween gestures, focusing more on composition, movement, and balance rather than following his own system dogmatically.

Just my two cents.

[Helioth]

Hey, I found a Dürer study in my inspiration folder with circular measurements, here you go:

[Jonas Heirwegh]

J Wilson, thank you. I added a link to Mentler's post here on CA.org to my first post, so look above and you'll find his example there.

Below I post what I have:

One image I found on the net (it's probably from Hale and I will confirm or deny it once the book has arrived), the other is from Laura Smith's blog "Laphoria" (http://laphoria.blogspot.com/2008/12/short-fat-and-proud-of-that.html). Smith uses squares instead of circles, but the basis for this square is the cranium.



I found this system alot more helpfull then the 7-8 head count for lifedrawing.
The good thing about measuring like this is that it's using bony landmarks.
While the other system is using fleshy landmarks like the belly button wich is not always accurate.

[The Crazy Dude SRD]

Hi there manfred...

I'll have to agree with Zaxter and Epias. This system is very powerful... I almost wanna say that it's like the metric system of figure measurement. And actually it's a lot older than Hale, It's actually the same method used by archeologists/autopsy for studying and cataloging human (both modern and ancient) based on using the cranium as the central method of measurement. (You will have to give me a few days to find my sources for this... as it's been a while and a couple computer crashes ago that I found this...)

[manfredkooistra]

Hey Briggsy, I got Mentler's PDF and its great. I won't publish anything from it here, but I can say it's clear, concise and helpful. Thanks again for that tip.

I also got "Masterclass in Figure Drawing" by Hale, and as you said the system only appears on a few pages and is only shown on the upper body. I wonder where the first drawing came from that I posted above. Anyone know?

Crazy Dude, thanks for that info. I'll go look around, but if you remember anything more or can find any books, please post the titles and authors or whatever info you have.

Here's a scan from Hale's "Masterclass" for you:

[jfrancis]

I got this from Hale, and Vilppu, and I'm repeating a bunch from above, but...

Cranial Index:

This is an important measurement also known as the 5-eye line.

Unlike full heads, this unit hits a lot of important bony landmarks.

It is the distance from top of head to just under nose.

Another one takes you to the pit of the neck.

Another one takes you to the points of the ribcage.

Another one takes you to the pelvic points.

It is the width of a head.

It is the length of a sternum.

It is the length of a scapula.

It is the length of a clavicle.

Two of them make a humerus; the lower arm is 80% of this.

Three of them make a femur; the lower leg is 80% of this.

It is a handy little measuring tool that I try to make the basis of all my judgements of figure proportions.

http://forums.cgsociety.org/archive/index.php/t-258029.html

[Philippe Le Miere]

I also got "Masterclass in Figure Drawing" by Hale, and as you said the system only appears on a few pages and is only shown on the upper body. I wonder where the first drawing came from that I posted above. Anyone know?

Check out Artistic Anatomy by Dr. Paul Richer and translated by Robert Beverly Hale:

http://www.amazon.com/Artistic-Anatomy-Practical-Art-Books/dp/0823002977/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242439079&sr=1-1

You'll find exact same image in this book and a whole lot of over really cool stuff also. As an historical note, the illustrations are by Dr. Paul Richer, not Hale.

[Muz]

Wow this sounds like an awesome alternative to the heads system. Sounds like i have some reading up to do on this.

[jfrancis]

He discusses the system much more fully in a set of videos that were made of one of his last anatomy courses. They are still available, but are extortionately expensive:
http://www.jo-an.com/art_video.htm


I bought them on VHS, 1 by 1, over time, or getting one as a gift for Christmas or my birthday. Finally got them all.

About as soon as I completed my VHS collection, they came out on DVD.

They are available for free at Northridge, CA campus. Reference only. No takeout. Non-student Public OK.

[jfrancis]

In the tradition of Robert Beverly Hale (and to a good extent, Vilppu) I like to use the head width (not head height) an important measurement also known as the 5-eye line.

Unlike full heads, this unit hits a lot of important bony landmarks.

It is the distance from top of head to just under nose.

Another one takes you to the pit of the neck.

Another one takes you to the bottom of the sternum.

Another one takes you to the points of the ribcage.

Another one takes you to the pelvic points.

It is the width of a head.

It is the length of a sternum.

It is the length of a scapula.

It is the length of a clavicle.

Two of them make a humerus; the lower arm is 80% of this.

Three of them make a femur; the lower leg is 80% of this.

It is a handy little measuring tool that I try to make the basis of all my judgments of figure proportions.

-----

The goal is NOT to make everyone conform to this. The goal is to have a reference in mind so that you can recognize and draw deviations from it as you encounter them.

[jfrancis]

Regarding the 5-eye line...

http://www.digitalartform.com/assets_c/2009/03/S-Eastwood-thumb-512x335-59.jpg

http://www.digitalartform.com/assets_c/2009/03/5eyeLineWidth_2-thumb-512x360-62.jpg

http://www.digitalartform.com/assets_c/2009/03/5-eye-line-lens-thumb-512x256-65.jpg

The 5-eye-line (http://www.digitalartform.com/archives/2009/03/portrait_lenses.html) is only visible when you are not super close to the subject's face.

[jfrancis]

Here is a look at the system per Hale

http://www.tsofa.com/galleries/skull/hale2.jpg

http://www.tsofa.com/galleries/skull/hale3.jpg

and here is something M Mentler put together I believe

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v413/mentler/profront.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v413/mentler/proback.jpg

via (http://www.cgtantra.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6637&postcount=15)