Forearm Help

[CreationEdge]

I've made my own system for tring to remember the forearm muscles(not doing too well I might add)

I count 12 muscles visible on the surface. I could study them all day, where they insert and such... But it's not helping when it comes to different positions of the arms(pronation, supination, etc.) I can get the origins and all, but the overlap of muscles is what seems to get me.

So, any tips on the forearm? Any muscles I'd be better off drawing as a single mass, etc.?

Would be awesome to get mentler on this >_>


Anyway, here's my numbering. I start from ant/lat to posterior and then to anterior.

1. Brachioradialis
2. Ext. Carpi Radialis Longus
3. Ext. Carpi Radialis Brevis
4. Abd. Pollicus Longus
5. Ext. Pollicus Brevis
6. Ext. Digitorum
7. Ext. Carpi Ulnaris
8. Anconeus(how it got 8, I dunno, just did.)
9. Flex. Carpi Ulnaris
10. Palmaris Longus
11. Flex. Carpi Radialis
12. Pronator Teres

[Aberrant]

Right now I basically treat the flexors as one mass and the extensors as another. I give special attention to the brachioradialis and just fudge the rest. I think it's not bad to treat most of the flexors as one mass, but the other side deserves more attention. I really need to study the forearm too, my knowledge is a bit shaky for a lot of it. I think the way to go is to study the origin, insertion, action, and shape of all the muscles in every position. When you get done with that it should be pretty easy to figure out which ones you can group together. At least for me it's most helpful to learn the nuts/bolts of how the muscles work and then drawing them comes easy. Posting sketches that could be discussed would probably be more helpful too.

[mentler]

As artists we have the luxury of grouping muscles !!!!! when ever more than one muscle performs the same function we can treat them as one group!!!

As remember that when you have a group of muscles you usually have a brevis, a longus and a magnus and in the case of the forearm the names tell you the insertions point ulnaris and radialis

Group them whenever possible!

[CreationEdge]

Thanks. That should help in learning tho basics.

But I'm pretty sure I'm heading into more of a graphic-novel future. Sorta super-hero, but there's not the costumes and stuff. So some of those guys will be ripped, and I've noticed that in comics each surface muscle tends to be pretty clear.

Any suggestions on this? Or should I just group the masses and then add the details as I deem fit(probably going to do this anyway)


Thanks for the help. I always thought grouping was more of a no-no. Good to see how wrong I was.

[Elwell]

As artists we have the luxury of grouping muscles !!!!! when ever more than one muscle performs the same function we can treat them as one group!!!

As remember that when you have a group of muscles you usually have a brevis, a longus and a magnus and in the case of the forearm the names tell you the insertions point ulnaris and radialis

Group them whenever possible!

Quoted for emphasis.
Aritistic anatomy and medical anatomy are two different things.

[CreationEdge]

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RQAdA9cUJNkozHu3*BYa1U*uGc3rClNkyKMrgnSOFo2vo6WG5 gOck3J93aDVO21DPpf*AkDArZTSuWLfe48liTeMhfqPNQCyyDl 4C6fOy5w/3jlee6.jpg?dc=4675459537427158573

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RQAdA9cUJNkozHu3*BYa1U*uGc3rClNkyKMrgnSOFo2vo6WG5 gOck3J93aDVO21DPpf*AkDArZTSuWLfe48liTeMhfqPNQCyyDl 4C6fOy5w/3jlee6.jpg?dc=4675459537427158573

Jim Lee... Comic God... Check out his forearm muscles mainly visible on the left in this one.

Check out almost any of his supes or batman pics and you'll see muscle definition like that. That's what I'm really havinng trouble with.

However, I really think I'll stick with masses for awhile and work on finding other groupables.

Thanks for the help.

[briggsy@ashtons]

Have you seen "Human Anatomy for Artists" by Eliot Goldfinger?
It treats each visible muscle individually, with numerous clear photographs and diagrams, and is full of original insights that seem to be based on plenty of experience demonstrating muscles in the life model. I think you will find it is just what you are looking for (combined with studying/copying some master drawings to see how this detailed anatomical knowledge is applied).

First make sure that you have a good grasp of the bony structure of the arm though, and understand the muscles as related functional groups, as others here have sagely advised. The danger in going straight to the details is that they will appear as surface ornament rather than construction. It sounds like you are already well down this path, but to any beginners tuning in I would suggest working in this sequence:

1. Study the bones of the arm, and learn their shapes, their surface landmarks and their movements, so that you can visualize them in any pose, from any angle.
Make sure you understand the importance of the axis through the epicondyles of the humerus: how the flexors of the wrist and fingers radiate from the inner epicondyle to the palm side of the hand, and the extensors of the wrist and fingers radiate from the outer epicondyle to the back of the hand; also how the extender (triceps) and flexors (biceps and brachialis) of the elbow lie front and back of this axis, and how the deltoid inserts roughly in line with the outer epicondyle.
You MUST understand all this to know where the muscles go in any action of the arm.

2. Turning to the forearm, notice how the inner mass (mostly flexors) coming from the inner epicondyle and the outer mass (mostly extensors) radiating from the outer epicondyle, are separated by the ulna on one side and by two "ridge muscles" on the other. Study the overall form of these masses, how they pass from fleshy masses in the upper arm to tendons in the lower arm. Note also the small mass of thumb muscles as a group.

3. NOW you are ready to look at the forearm muscles in detail. I drew up the diagram below of the RIGHT forearm muscles for teaching purposes, but the system is Goldfinger's. The muscles are much easier to grasp if you know the underlying pattern: one wrist flexor/extensor to each of the little finger and thumb sides of the wrist (FCU and FCR/ECU and ECRB); between the wrist flexors/extensors, one major flexor/extensor to the fingers (FDS/ED), and one extra one to its right (palmaris/EDM); to the right of the flexors/extensors, an extra, short muscle to the radius/ulna (PT/anconeus). The main complication is that one of the "ridge muscles" is also an extensor of the wrist, so we get ECRL and ECRB. I'm glossing over many further refinements that you will find in Goldfinger.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/djcbriggs/anatomy%20notes/Forearm-muscles.jpg

[CreationEdge]

Thanks.

No, haven't had the opportunity to get many anatomy things besides my 2 B. Hogarthe Books(Dynamic Anatomy and Drawing the Human Head). I did get some scans from the Atlas of Anatomy(don't know by who, but it was a yellow hardcover.). I also have a few loomis books and a cache of muscle images from various sites.

Yeah, I've been studying the origin and insertion points of the muscles as well as the function. Originally, I didn't bother with the function. Then I realized that I wouldn't know which muscles flexed when if I didn't, so I've been keeping track of the function ever since.

The main problem for me is that I don't get many opportunities too get hands-on up-close studying of what I need to.

Thankfully I discovered a skeleton in on of my school's art rooms and I've been sneaking there to do some studies. Just a few minutes with that and I realized so much about the skull, scapula, and forearm that I didn't know before. Can't wait to get in there and do some decent studies. (Short class=short studies to get in all of the angles/info I want. End of the school year is approaching.)

Thanks again for all the help.

[HunterKiller_]

Uh... gee, i didn't know there were so many individual muscles in the forearm... :$

[CreationEdge]

Hehe... There's a lot more than that. There's a ton of deep muscles, too. I think it's amazing at how complex it is.

Evolution is awesome ^_^

[bonedog]

I used to study anatomy a lot, and I learned a lot. However, I feel my drawings have improved a great deal by letting some of that go. You can't feel the force of a punch if you're thinking of the dozens of muscles involved in making that punch happen. I'm _not_ saying "don't study the forearm muscles". I _am_ saying that one should be careful about putting so much energy into making the anatomy perfect that the rest of the drawing suffers.

My drawings would suck... and I'd think, "gotta study more... gotta study more... gotta draw more... then I'll be a great artist." But really, it's not about that.

I could write for a long time about this but I'll stop here and what I said makes some sense.

-bonedog

[Main Loop]

if you're going to get that detailed and realistic with anatomy, you're better off having some sort of live model, instead of trying to piece it together out of your head.. get the big shapes dwn first before you go into all the details.. you dont need to be an expert.. looking at a few muscle mags wouldnt hurt..

[CreationEdge]

I don't need to know all the muscles, just the surface ones. I need to know why the skin looks like it does when stuff is happening.

I don't usually draw each muscle. Lately I have been working on grouping, but I find it much easier to canstruct a part of the body if I know about both the bones and muscles involved.

If I had a live model... I think I would do 2 drawings. 1, the model. 2, copy that image and then draw in all the muscles. I've done that mith myself and my full-length mirror I've got behind me.

Working on grouping more, though. Several muscles are rarely distinguishable from eachother.

[briggsy@ashtons]

A couple of thoughts inspired by bonedog and Main Loop

I agree completely about the danger of getting lost in the individual muscles. I believe in paying attention to detail, but also in always seeing that detail in the context of the big picture. These two ideals make conflicting demands on our attention, but they are not mutually exclusive.

Observation vs. anatomical construction - the debate goes back at least to Caravaggio, whose method of painting direct from the subject posed a challenge to the conventional approach typified by the Carracci, which required years of study, not just of anatomical detail, but to train the imagination to work in a constructional way. The direct method imposed some limitations on subject matter, but in the hands of a genius like Caravaggio it produced some stunning paintings. For most of us though, when we draw things we don't UNDERSTAND, there is usually a whiff of dodginess not far off. Many of the hands painted by the followers of Caravaggio positively stink.

This quote by Vernon Blake from "The Art and Craft of Painting" hits me right between the eyes every time I read it. He is describing how the French artist and teacher Eugene Carriere redrew an arm Blake had insufficiently "understood" in class; the year is 1900. "He looked at the model and first drew the bones as they appeared to his instructed mental vision, in spite of the clothing flesh. Over these bones he placed the muscles; then, laying down the charcoal, he passed his thumb over the anatomical design, saying as he did so: 'And then the light follows all the higher parts of the modelling in this way.' The muscle and bone detail was effaced and there only remained that interlacing arabesque of shadow and of supple serpentine light which we associate with his name. It was a lesson in true simplification, in the simplification which is full of, and so suggestive of, underlying knowledge."

[loomer]

thanks so much for that Briggsy. I always felt Blake's work suffered from poor anatomy and sometimes just bad drawing all together. I think I would enjoy his work on a whole different level if it had excelled in content AND technique.

Also to note...good to bring up Eugene Carriere - very under-rated artist.
Not every piece he did was a winner, but he has produced some really lovely work.