I'd say just dive into it. You'll get just as good answers from just trying and failing as you will get from asking in here. Get as many books as possible: bridgeman, Paul Richer, Gottfried Bammes, Elliot Goldfinger, John Robert Peck etc. Trust me, one anatomy book is never enough. They all kind of say the same thing, but each book has a special something that is often cruicial to your mental library. As for getting the most out of reference drawings, I think it's important to always do them with a certain question in mind.
Anyway, anatomy books are mostly for...well, reference. Sure, they can teach you things about the muscles and bone structures, but that knowledge works best when applied to something in real life instead of standing alone.
I was taking life drawing and human anatomy at the same time in college, so once I started learning more, during my drawings, the process began to move faster because I knew what the bones and muscles were, where they were, how they should go [ie: the angle of the clavicles between a male and a female], their typical size, and other such things.
It's kinda like...pb&j. Sure, it taste pretty swell with just peanut butter [life], but when you put on jelly[books], it adds an extra excitement.
When I was a beginner I picked up a lot of anatomy books (many of the traditional ones listed here). However, I wasn't really equipped to use or understand them. At that point, I was just trying to get through copying forms as I saw them and to learn from someone else's drawing was...well...just copying someone else's interruptation of anatomy. I shifted to using myself and a mirror and made vast, vast improvement. For anatomy of other types that I was not, I used nude photo ref books (which are more numerous now than they used to be).
I also took anatomy in HS and spent a semester dissecting a cat, whose muscles roughly corresponded to ours, and that helped a lot. I think if you're able to take time to make a sculpt of bone and/or muscle you'll be able to envision them much better than in the 2D.
^^^ agreed above. Also sculpture is good for reinforcing the understanding of how forms 'turn'. So that when you draw you can properly draw through the shapes and show the volume of the shape properly. I got a lot out of learning in sculpture to turn the piece and follow the form around properly and it makes me much more aware of that issue in drawing than just learning contour drawing on it's own ever did.
Side note: I'm really curious why so many people are adamant supporters of "Drawing on the Right side of the Brain"? I read it in early high school and it came across as pretentious psuedo-scientific gobbledy-gook to me then. Considering there is a huge debate in cognitive science over whether there truly is a 'creative' or 'analytic' side only for the brain makes one wonder how that book can even make those assertions. The adaptability of the brain to overcome damage and still have all the functions grow anew in a different part of the brain kind of skews it's arguements. If you take the book less as science based and more a philosophical treatise on art, then that is fine. Just don't take it as 'biblical' art fact. ;P To me, the idea that anyone can draw is fine. But it's more about the misuse of the word 'talented' in our culture that makes people believe they can or can't draw.
Side note: I'm really curious why so many people are adamant supporters of "Drawing on the Right side of the Brain"? I read it in early high school and it came across as pretentious psuedo-scientific gobbledy-gook to me then.
The things to take away from that book are:
1. that anyone can draw if you want to
2. what we see vs what we think we see, or true observational drawing and seeing, breaking down everything to 2d forms that anyone can handle.
It's really irrelevant which side is doing what. it's the best primer for learning to draw that i know of course until i write one hohohoho
It may not be as useful for ca'ers because most people here believe they can learn to draw if they put their mind to it. However for the general public drawing has a mystical air. Yet, it'd be good for most people to look at it if they haven't already done so because I see tons and tons of concepts that really struggle because the artist has yet to devote time to real observational drawing.
Last edited by Elwell; July 31st, 2009 at 07:12 PM.
What is the difference between drawing from life or photo reference or mirror
uh, if you're missing an eye I guess. Depth perception certainly makes a difference in drawing and painting from life, as does having the freedom to take a step sideways and better understand the form you're looking at as it turns.
I work from photos when I paint, so I'm not in any way saying that it's not a good practice, but to say that it's the same as direct observation from life is just ridiculous.
3D is just perspective, unless you like to tell me it's something else. There's 3D and perspective in a picture too, in essence, the projection your eye gets is similar because it's similar to how a camera works. Just as I thought, people use unsubstantiated claims that it's "different" though and claim 3D real life has some mystical extra quality a picture can't show.
Like others said, it is definitely 3d perception and seeing things as more than what they are and to make sense and feel the object.
However in my opinion 2d gives you the ability to learn construction first anytime, anywhere. If you draw without being aware of the underlying construction and just try to copy it, then regardless of whether or not you draw from life or from a photo, it won't be helpful. Photos and videos give you the luxury of working at your own time and convenience so you can understand the underlying anatomy better before you study in depth on the field. Because in the field your characters move and interact and often are there for only a glimpse.
The most important thing is to understand what you are drawing and to visualize things in 3d.
Get a book to help you with visualizing and drawing through. With the knowledge of construction in mind, you can apply what you learned in the studio to what you see on the road, at the zoo, people watching, etc. without getting confused at how to draw things.
Last edited by WhisperPntr; July 31st, 2009 at 06:30 AM.
-Cameras have lens distortion, see Loomis "Creative Illustration" for more on this
-Cameras have only one eye
-Cameras have a vastly more limited dynamic range than eyes
-Cameras will tend to get colours wrong- your eyes can "white balance" on the fly, cameras generally can't
-When you draw from photos the image is already flattened out to a 2d plane for you
-You can't get up and walk around a photo to see something from a slightly different angle.
I agree with this. BUT I have always seen cameras having only one eye as an advantage. Humans, having two eyes, see objects at two different angles. The angle change happens, obviously, at the center of your vision where the two observed images are blended. This can be seen in quite an obvious way when looking at a reflective surface (ex.-cars) You observe two totally different sets of reflections. Also, since we have two angles instead of one..I would imagine you actually see more of an object than we are "supposed" to. Especially when it comes to perspective, since both of our eyes are not lined up, we see things from two different perspectives. Anywho..that's my take. Someone please tell me if Im wrong. Haha!!