Join 500,000+ artists on ConceptArt.Org.
Its' free and it takes less than 10 seconds!
for male and female anatomy, who would you recommend to study from? books or tutorials if any?
2)Welcome to CA, use the search
3)Everyone will say Peck, Bridgman, Loomis
4)Others will say Bammes, Richer but they're foreign and weird and they speak crazy moon languages.
Ignore anyone who says "Grays Anatomy" unless you plan to draw many spleens.
Also "anatomy for the artist" by Tom Flynt and Peter Stanyer is horrible. Not keen on Sarah Simblett either.
I also use the Riven Phoenix DVDs, but that is figure drawing from your mind and you have to keep up before you actually start drawng muscles etc
aye i have the riven pheonix dvd 2. but is it nesesary to learn all that muscle drawings?
If you want to make people that look like people, you have to learn muscle structure.
Maybe try drawing force by mike matessi.
Albinus, Mentler and Da Vinci all have good things to say. Michaelangelo, Raphael and a ton of other old dead guys were masters of the human form.
Masters abound. Copying them occasionally isn't a bad idea. There's some new fangled DVDs and books that are okay, but other than Mentler, the best books were done by people like Loomis and Bridgman, and you'll see their names mentioned a lot around the forum.
Try books that focus on the construction of anatomy rather then simply giving muscle charts. Bridgman and Bammes are good in this area. I also really like the anatomy workshops by Ron Lemen in ImagineFX.
The only argument you can make in favor of life drawing is that the image is still warped because the image your eyes receive is parabolic, on a surface it's already flat.
Every other argument is bullocks^^.
Some people might prefer life drawing, but it's not "better", because your retina, with the exception of the parabolic quality, receives almost the same image from a high end photo camera. The attitude that it is better is usually one that is spread from art schools, of course they make money of their classes, so take their 'advice' to draw from life, with more than a grain of salt.
It's the same argument language schools use by claiming you need to learn from professional speakers, without wanting to acknowledge that there are people who learned to write and speak perfectly through DVD's or movies without ever setting a foot in a language class.
Last edited by Jem'ennuie; January 19th, 2009 at 07:46 PM.
Now, my gut reaction is to just dismiss you as possibly stupid or young, since both are prone to such bold, sweeping and wrong declarations, but I always try and think a bit about them before responding since sometimes real truth can come from the weirdest sources.
So, after thinking for a bit, I've decided that you're still possibly stupid or young.
They say that the first step toward wisdom is realizing how little you really know, so I'm going to help you along and tell you you don't know shit. The ignorance over how the eye interprets space and colour is pretty telling, as well.
If you want to draw well you have to be able to understand how the body moves, how it exists in space, how skin stretches and moves across flexing and relaxing muscles, how gravity pulls at all of it.
Photos can only tell you so much of that -- and how did photos come up in talking about learning from books, which are often and rightly made up mostly of drawings -- and those sometimes backed-up with photographs as examples.
And all those guys who make the books people keep mentioning learned all they know from drawing from life.
Aside from that, here's the most obvious shortcoming of your claim that life drawing is essentially no better than drawing from photos.
Take one of your high-def photos of a person standing 10 feet away from you, print it out at a size so that the figure in the photo is the same size as the person posing when it's held at arm's length in front of you standing at the same spot you took the photo. Step to the right; you now have a completely different set of information to draw upon to draw that figure while the photo is still flat and tells you no more. Return to the starting point and then step to the left; again, you gain far more information about what you're looking at while the photo remains unchanged and no more helpful. To the uninformed, being able to move around while drawing may not seem like the boon it is, but understanding those shapes in 3D space is essential to becoming better at drawing and capturing the illusion on paper.
Drawing from life is better. It's how all this started.
Couple that with a well-structured course and strong instructor and the student will learn faster with fewer false starts or mis-steps.
The point you made about being able to perceive your subject from more than one angle is valid.
That you can watch body language and force on your subject is valid too.
All of this however, is still possible with digital or negative means on film or with a printed medium. I don't see how learning how to draw needs to include learning how to draw from life and why this is a requirement to be able to draw succesfully. What one learns from printed media, one can use in life drawing and visa versa.
There's not much that a photo or picture doesn't show. If I hold a picture in front of someone of a piece of scenery which is a copy of what's behind it, you will not be able to tell the difference unless you come up really really close and see the edges. This somewhat shows where this "theory" that drawing from life is so much better is one without much proof.
There's the parabolic difference, eyes see things in a distorted parabole on the back of our eye and then the brain makes a correct projection out of that. It's different when looking at a flat surface, but there's never been proven that this somehow helps you draw better.
Last edited by Jem'ennuie; January 19th, 2009 at 09:49 PM.
All things are possible.
It's quite possible for a man to produce breast-milk, but it requires a great deal more effort and it isn't what I'd call particularly efficient.
There's a great deal that a photo does not show or show well, primarily movement, depth, and eye-accurate colour and value.
Only in a Warner Bros. cartoon does a 2D image become interchangeable from an environment. I understand people who wear glasses sometimes have problems with that aspect of depth, but I certainly don't.
reality has depth, volume, form, physics, an environment, an atmosphere, light, objects existing within a space, i could go on...
photographs at best make a depiction of reality which suggest these things, but in no way can contain them. working form photographs or any 2D image onto another 2D surface eliminates a great deal of factors which an artist should have a good grasp of. to avoid these aspects entirely will drastically limit your ability to find solution to problems which are not already presented in a two dimensional form.
ask a sculptor how easy it is to undersand volume if you only get to see one angle. i mean if photos can capture volume flawlessly then why do sculptors need multiple views of an object? something about a third dimension... hmm, weird can't put my finger on it, maybe you can figure it out.
this is not some "conspiracy" by academia to brainwash art students into believing a false mantra. drawing from life offers the artist the ability to translate reality firsthand. learning to see is a crucial step... a lot of liberties are taken care of when you merely work from photos and you are not seeing volume. you are seeing a depiction of volume.
please do not toss about multisyllable words in falsely describing the functions of the eye and expect that they will defend you from getting called out on your erroneous claims.
Photos flatten everything. Your shadows go flat, your depth perception is changed, and the camera distorts especially when it comes to foreshortening. Drawing from life enables you to grasp the relationship between forms and shadows a whole lot easier. It's the whole reason why if I need to draw hands, I use mine instead of referring to a picture. A picture hides the overlap and the shadows of that interlocking. As said, you can see the model from multiple angles - you can't do that to a photo, so you automatically lose sense of depth.
Also, particularly when drawing people, a real human model with the right lighting helps way more than a photo. Photos have a tendency to wash out their values. You can't perceive as much from them. With a live model, you have 3D forms to evaluate. There are no edges. That immediately makes drawing from life valuable. Anybody can draw decently from a photo but not everyone is going to "get" life drawing without a good instructor and multiple hourly sessions.
Not to mention, you also lose the little details in a photo. Real life comes with all of the nuances that are hard to miss in person when closely observed.
I see now why life drawing is better.
but i ddint look at it on how you see it.
But how u draw it. If you learn from books, You'll only learn how to clone his
drawings. But with life drawing, You'll do your own style and you teach yourself instead of another teaching you.
No matter what, i guess life will be better, i guess books will only go as far as facts about the human anatomy.