Human Female Anatomy Book

[Momus]

Does such a thing exist?

Most of the time I get a text, like the one by Goldfinger, where it is almost wholly and exclusively male, with small pointers to what differs between the male and female form. Can you just guess where the different fat deposits and ridges and proportions are? No, that is utter BULLSHIT. I hope to hell there's someone as extensive as Elliot Goldfinger who's gone to the trouble of outlining female-specific human anatomy

So, someone please help me out. Do they exist? Has it ever been properly explored?

Recommendations, plz!

[FlipMcgee]

http://www.amazon.com/Strength-Training-Anatomy-Frederic-Delavier/dp/0736048138/ref=pd_sim_b_2/103-7079139-9492652





.

[Momus]

The most useful reference that comes to mind isn't even designed for artists? Looks like it completely ignores the upper body, too.

Thanks, anyway.

[dose]

Can you just guess where the different fat deposits and ridges and proportions are?

No, but you can figure it out with a little thinking and hard work. And drawing intelligently from life will answer most of your questions.

IMHO anatomy books are often overrated or at least misunderstood. At best they can teach you what to look for and give you some understanding to bring to your drawing. They will not make you magically draw well. I think people often look to anatomy books to solve shortcomings in their understanding of how to construct complex foreshortened forms (not necessarily deep foreshortening like a finger pointing straight at you- there is plenty of foreshortening in a straight profile even). Knowing anatomy can help- especially the ability to recognize/analyze what you are looking at and/or construct the major forms- but knowing every detail of anatomy does not necessarily make you a great draftsman (as has been said before- otherwise, doctors would all be amazing figurative artists).

Also I think there's a lot benefit to starting with a solid understanding of one general ideal form and understanding how others vary from that. Certainly, generations of inherited bias in the West have had some impact on why that form is traditionally male when it just as easily could be the other way around (though I think largely it's because the anatomy is usually easier to spot on a male figure compared to the more subtle anatomy of the female). But understanding how to construct a male figure then knowing that a female is similar- but with different proportions and certain different details- is not a bad direction to go.

If you have any specific questions, you have a great resource in CA.org. There are lots of threads about anatomy. Or maybe start a new thread about female anatomy (but choose the title carefully...)

[Momus]

I have perhaps placed too much fervor on trying to find illustrated reference that I forgot the value of studying from life. Thank you, dose, for your refreshing words.

[Maxine Schacker]

We are very similar. The biggest difference is that the standard female pelvis is the width of the shoulders, approximately clavicle tip to clavicle tip. The standard male pelvis is the width of the ribcage. The female pelvis is tipped a bit because of an anatomical detail that doesn't affect form ( so you don't have to know more than that it is tipped). The sacrum is one third the width of the pelvis, so on the female it is wider because the pelvis is wider.

Anatomy will only help if you spend lots of time drawing the figure from life. I suggest using The Natural Way to Draw, and not getting into anatomy until it comes up in the schedules.

[FactorZero]

Anatomy books are good, but drawing straight from the source is the best. Take a class, or draw from photo's. There are plenty of photo's in the 'nude reference thread' to study from.

[rpace]

I actually suggest you don't draw from photos until you're comfortable drawing the figure from your head. Photography lies, not intentionally, but until you know what you're looking at you won't be able to tell when the photo distorts. Copying from photos doesn't engage the artist in the same way as from life -- it's merely a spacial exercise.

You may want to find a nice, reasonably accurate and realistic sculpture if you don't have ready access to the model (I mean replica, not original work, of course).

Generally, I only use photo refs when needed for work.

[armando]

Paul Richer's "Artistic Anatomy" has some diagrams of fat deposits. Also Richard Hatton's "Figure Drawing" has some good info. If you can draw a man then you can draw a woman, and vice versa, it's mostly easily observable proportional and rhythmical differences, Edweard Muybridge's "The Human Figure in Motion" is useful here.

[Flake]

Stereotype Woman = bigger hips, higher waist, smaller nose, reduced brow ridge, softer featuers, generally curvier.

Stereotype Man = broader shoulders, narrow hips, low waist, prominent brow ridge, larger jaw, straighter features.

Regarding the Nicolaides book, by all means read it, then compare it to, say, Loomis and then count how many awesome drawings are in each book..

[rpace]

If Nicolaides was only about the drawings in the book, then it would have gone out of print ages ago -- especially since the book was assembled (not written, mind you) after he died and he had not drawn the examples to sit alongside the text so former students supplied work of often questionable quality.

Nicolaides is a process book, Loomis is a how-to book, Guess which one leans on the text more than the art?

~Richard

[paberu]

I think anatomy books help you understand the body in function so when you go to do life drawing it's easier to see/observe what is in front of you. So I'd say doing both is great, plus it's always a good way to see how experienced artist are solving the challenges that you are faced with when translating what you see onto paper.

[Soja]

here this is the best anatomy book i know...but i dont know if there's a english verison of it.it has both man and woman shows all fat pats and has also photo examples in it. it's really hard to read...so I didnt work from it yet.:bashful:
i think it's already out of print but I'm sure u can get it somewhere as a pdf
here's the link to amazon:
http://www.amazon.de/Gestalt-Menschen-Handbuch-Anatomie-K%C3%BCnstler/dp/3473610992/ref=sr_1_7/303-1038111-7291404?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176028653&sr=1-7

[MalachiMcmullen]

This book is fantastic, I've seen a bunch of anatomy books that are useful but boring and this is straight to the point and interesting. I agree with what is said above however, you can draw photos all you like but there is no substitute for the real thing.
http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Artist-Sarah-Simblet/dp/078948045X