The master's odd anatomy

Join 500,000+ Artists

Its' free and it takes less than 10 seconds!

Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

Results 1 to 29 of 29
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    343
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 65 Times in 48 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    The master's odd anatomy

    So I've been "copying" or using the "Drawing anatomy with the masters" as a reference to just practice and get a better grip on anatomy. See my sketchbook to see the results.

    Anyway, I notice some parts of their anatomy are a bit odd. Like their "cauliflower" knees. I've never seen knees like that for real. Nor do the anatomical references in the back of the book support this kind of knee.
    So where do they come from?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Haifa, Israel
    Posts
    4,108
    Thanks
    2,350
    Thanked 2,317 Times in 1,425 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Care to give us any samples of the pictures that puzzle you? You haven't even said *who* was drawing those "cauliflower knees".

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    343
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 65 Times in 48 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Well a good example would be Benvenuto Cellini, Drawing of a satyr:

    The master's odd anatomy

    I did notice however that after having studied the knees more in debt they are less mystifying, but this is still a good example. There just doesn't seem to be that many bones, muscles, tendons, ... around the knee joint.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    29
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I read that Da Vinci said Michelangelo's men looked like they were stuffed with nuts.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    343
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 65 Times in 48 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Hahahaha! Nice!

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    5,234
    Thanks
    3,512
    Thanked 4,900 Times in 2,544 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Sure...there's all kinds of reasons and weirdisms in art. That model may have very well had knees like that with a bit of extra skin or fatty tissue. Take a look at hands sometime - real people's hands...not stylized ideal hands. Some have a bit of arthritis so th eknuckles are enlarged...all kinds of things. If you work from life enough you realize just how much variation exists and how stylized someone like Loomis is.

    The "Masters" were generally either telling stories...or recording some degree of reality...or often creating fantastical allegorical images. They were'nt doing comics, pinups or posters where pop culture trends and styles have so much influence.

    What would Caravaggio do?
    _________________________

    Portfolio
    Plein Air
    Digital
    Still Life
    Sight Measuring
    Fundamentals
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to JeffX99 For This Useful Post:


  9. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,001
    Thanks
    891
    Thanked 1,009 Times in 538 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    The master's odd anatomy


    A lot of masters seem to be like that. Even the above that seems accurate. The bottom half though I don't see those muscles that developed or extended ever. But at the same time, peoples anatomy was probably very different from the everyday now. Different nutrition, amounts of working out their bodies. Etc.

    So the 'stylized' master anatomy I'm wondering if it was even stylized.
    As well what Jeff said about people having anatomical differences.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  10. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Haifa, Israel
    Posts
    4,108
    Thanks
    2,350
    Thanked 2,317 Times in 1,425 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    That's just heavy stylization and overzealous attention to anatomical minutiae. Cellini had been very prone to overdoing such detail, exaggerating the lumping and bunching-up of tissues. It's very evident in all his work; I think he was either not very interested in encompassing form, or not very good at seeing it. You won't see anything like Donatello's elegant simplicity and balance in Cellini's work.

    The masters were just humans, after all; they were very good at what they did, which is why they are remembered as masters, but it does not mean they had supernatural abilities. Their attentions had their quirks, just like with the rest of us.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  11. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to arenhaus For This Useful Post:


  12. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    1,353
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 448 Times in 314 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    If you want to study anatomy, then study anatomy.
    If you want to study the old masters, then study the old masters.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  13. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Torrance, CA
    Posts
    6,802
    Thanks
    2,278
    Thanked 4,259 Times in 2,074 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    This sketch by Michelangelo has always disturbed me

    The master's odd anatomy

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gJ6d5yFc7f...chelangelo.jpg

    The eye doesn't appear in profile and some weird boobage.

    But if anything, I think the masters are entitled to mistakes like anyone else, that's how they learned and got better.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  14. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    221
    Thanks
    207
    Thanked 103 Times in 70 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    This used to disturb me.
    The master's odd anatomy

    Then I learned that, at the time, it wouldn't have been appropriate to use a female model. It would've been difficult to draw a woman if you're just going by memory and how a female form looks fully clothed. Doesn't really address the cauliflower knees, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn if there was a similar reason it was all so exaggerated or overdone, in comparison to realistic anatomy.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York, USA
    Posts
    2,337
    Thanks
    1,074
    Thanked 2,199 Times in 1,055 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    That Cranach was actually an ideal type at the time... She looks like that not so much because of ignorance as because of the fact that she's been exaggerated to fit an ideal. (Much like the way a fashion illustration will have wildly distorted proportions...) Same with a lot of old master stuff, they're often more concerned with creating ideals than with creating something strictly realistic.

    Plus there was a fair amount of imitating classical sculpture and/or each other, so you see some trends in stylization that get passed around and become increasingly stylized... Especially with artists who didn't have the opportunity to see any real classical sculpture and were imitating prints of other people's drawings of classical sculpture.

    As for Michelangelo, he never did get the hang of women. Probably he never had an opportunity to see any real nude women.

    Da Vinci's drawings are interesting to look at in bulk, you can see him change his mind a lot about anatomy as he progressed with his dissection experiments...

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  16. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to QueenGwenevere For This Useful Post:


  17. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    221
    Thanks
    207
    Thanked 103 Times in 70 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by QueenGwenevere View Post
    That Cranach was actually an ideal type at the time... She looks like that not so much because of ignorance as because of the fact that she's been exaggerated to fit an ideal. (Much like the way a fashion illustration will have wildly distorted proportions...) Same with a lot of old master stuff, they're often more concerned with creating ideals than with creating something strictly realistic.

    Plus there was a fair amount of imitating classical sculpture and/or each other, so you see some trends in stylization that get passed around and become increasingly stylized... Especially with artists who didn't have the opportunity to see any real classical sculpture and were imitating prints of other people's drawings of classical sculpture.
    Ah, well in that case I'm displeased to have been misinformed, and by my very first art book, too I wonder what other lies I've believed for the last 18 years... Thanks for clearing things up!

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  18. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Posts
    551
    Thanks
    72
    Thanked 228 Times in 148 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JFierce View Post
    The master's odd anatomy
    Wow, now that back won't ever win a Mr. Olympia contest, also, I don't see how it can "work".

    Maybe it belongs to this poor fellow...

    The master's odd anatomy

    "Don't judge a book by it's cover" Frank Frazetta 1928-2010
    RIP Frank.

    DA gallery http://michaelsyrigos.deviantart.com/gallery/

    CA Sketchbook http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=131601
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Line For This Useful Post:


  20. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,116
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked 690 Times in 417 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    The masters of the Flemish Renaissance painted figures that were in some ways more realistic, in that they looked like normal people instead of those heavily muscled supermen that the Italian masters painted. What I have always wondered though is whether the Flemish artists studied anatomy, or whether they just painted from living models as well as they could. My guess is that at the time, dissecting dead bodies was even more illegal in northern Europe than it was in Italy, and the likes of Campin or Van der Weyden probably would not have done anything of the sort. On the other hand, some of their work seems to be informed by anatomical knowledge, such as Campin's "Crucified thief" and Van der Weyden's "Deposition" below.

    Attached Images Attached Images      
    ____________________________________________
    My sketchbook thread:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...ight=blogmatix
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  21. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,001
    Thanks
    891
    Thanked 1,009 Times in 538 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Many of them seem to have issues with faces though. The first one, I swear it looks like several of the faces are just 'drooping' down, like it's half melted or clay like

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  22. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,116
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked 690 Times in 417 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JFierce View Post
    Many of them seem to have issues with faces though. The first one, I swear it looks like several of the faces are just 'drooping' down, like it's half melted or clay like
    Keep in mind it was painted decades before Leonardo was even born. Inevitably, it still contains medieval stylizations. I am nevertheless completely in awe of the Flemish masters.

    ____________________________________________
    My sketchbook thread:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...ight=blogmatix
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  23. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Haifa, Israel
    Posts
    4,108
    Thanks
    2,350
    Thanked 2,317 Times in 1,425 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by blogmatix View Post
    What I have always wondered though is whether the Flemish artists studied anatomy, or whether they just painted from living models as well as they could.
    The Flemish Renaissance pictures like those show quite clearly in most cases that: 1) the artist had a model, but 2) the artist had insufficient awareness of perspective. There are lots of details that are hard to explain without the artists working with models, especially in minutiae. But the overall form is naive and its structure is typically wobbly. This is consistent with copying from a model as well as you can manage, but without keeping the structure / perspective in mind.

    Anatomy had been a real underdog back then; the church forbade dissections, so all that there was to study from were the works of Aristotle and Galenus; both quite advanced for when they had been written, but chock full of naive errors. Geometric perspective was still to be developed. What you have here is a breakthrough of a different kind: the artists just starting to work from life instead of copying the canon. The breakthrough was in the approach, but not yet in the method.

    If your basic education had been in icon painting (very canonical and formulaic), and then someone imports a completely different paradigm of painting, then if you try to approach life drawing with the methods carried over from icon painting, you'll get something like these Flemish works. It is markedly different with early Italian renaissance, where you can actually see a gradual progression in method over three generations. In Flanders, you get something not unlike a talented but strictly manga-fed kid who discovers Raphael and tries painting from life.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  24. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Haifa, Israel
    Posts
    4,108
    Thanks
    2,350
    Thanked 2,317 Times in 1,425 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by QueenGwenevere View Post
    As for Michelangelo, he never did get the hang of women. Probably he never had an opportunity to see any real nude women.
    From what I hear, he got a fair share of women in his life, but for some reason that I cannot fathom, Mike seems to never have grokked the shape of tits. He botched them in nearly every work of his that included some.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  25. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Posts
    2,710
    Thanks
    2,942
    Thanked 1,819 Times in 936 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by arenhaus View Post
    From what I hear, he got a fair share of women in his life, but for some reason that I cannot fathom, Mike seems to never have grokked the shape of tits. He botched them in nearly every work of his that included some.
    I guess he had no time for second base.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  26. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,008
    Thanks
    175
    Thanked 696 Times in 292 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JFierce View Post
    Many of them seem to have issues with faces though. The first one, I swear it looks like several of the faces are just 'drooping' down, like it's half melted or clay like
    This is because they- like so many on this forum- hadn't yet realized that perspective applies to everything in a picture including faces and bodies, not just buildings and tables.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dose For This Useful Post:


  28. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,116
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked 690 Times in 417 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by arenhaus View Post
    The Flemish Renaissance pictures like those show quite clearly in most cases that: 1) the artist had a model, but 2) the artist had insufficient awareness of perspective. There are lots of details that are hard to explain without the artists working with models, especially in minutiae. But the overall form is naive and its structure is typically wobbly. This is consistent with copying from a model as well as you can manage, but without keeping the structure / perspective in mind.
    I am not attuned enough to anatomy to really notice. Here and there I can see something is strange, but I can't necessarily work out what.

    It is actually instructive to compare Flemish Renaissance with Italian works of the same period or slightly later. By modern standards, both have their own weaknesses. The Flemish work suffers from lack of anatomical and perspective knowledge; the Italian work sometimes has too much of it. The Flemish artists were much concerned with precise observation from nature; the Italians with theory.

    Caravaggio was perhaps the first to achieve a good synthesis between the two?

    Either way, I am very fond of early Renaissance/late medieval work. It exemplifies the word craftsmanship, and achieves an intensity of expression seldom seen again. And of course, it is often deliciously gory... :-)

    Attached Images Attached Images  
    ____________________________________________
    My sketchbook thread:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...ight=blogmatix
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  29. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York, USA
    Posts
    2,337
    Thanks
    1,074
    Thanked 2,199 Times in 1,055 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    If you want realism, Grunewald is definitely not the guy you want... (I love him though. Sixteenth century psychedelia FTW!)

    An interesting point about northern and southern renaissance trends: Late in the sixteenth century, some Italian artists actually took to admiring the expressive exaggerations of northern renaissance art, and tried to imitate it, or were inspired to experiment with new forms of expressive exaggeration. (Pontormo was pretty strongly influenced by northern art.) Cross-influences between north and south helped feed the general trend of mannerist art...

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  30. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Haifa, Israel
    Posts
    4,108
    Thanks
    2,350
    Thanked 2,317 Times in 1,425 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by blogmatix View Post
    The Flemish work suffers from lack of anatomical and perspective knowledge; the Italian work sometimes has too much of it. The Flemish artists were much concerned with precise observation from nature; the Italians with theory.

    Caravaggio was perhaps the first to achieve a good synthesis between the two?
    I'd say it might have been Mantegna, but I don't think anyone else had made use of his example for years and years.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  31. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Torrance, CA
    Posts
    6,802
    Thanks
    2,278
    Thanked 4,259 Times in 2,074 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    The guy on the right pointing totally has a "Oh no you didn'!" look

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  32. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,001
    Thanks
    891
    Thanked 1,009 Times in 538 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I find it fun trying to figure out what's off. These are my guesses.

    Well perspective issue is that Jesus I'm guessing who is on the cross. Is fricken huge for one.. On my screen I wanted to measure to see if it was my eyes playing tricks on me and when I zoomed out he was an inch taller by scale than the other figures and his body seems thicker. The girl praying to the left looks behind the cross.

    Looks as though the cross is meant to be directionally a bit right, but his body is twisting left a bit. Then if the cross is facing the right, the actually horizontal part of the cross is oddly longer than the cross and more so longer on the right.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  33. #27
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    10,256
    Thanks
    3,535
    Thanked 5,476 Times in 3,685 Posts
    Follows
    1
    Following
    0
    It was an hierarchy, more important people were painted bigger. If you were rich and wanted to be included, you might be just a tad smaller.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  34. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,001
    Thanks
    891
    Thanked 1,009 Times in 538 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    True, just pointing out the issues with perspective I saw, people can make hierarchy within perspective but back then they were a bit lacking in that knowledge apparently.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  35. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    WA State
    Posts
    2,364
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 1,273 Times in 887 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I like cross-bearing-lamb-with-attitude.

    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  36. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kamber Parrk For This Useful Post:


Members who have read this thread: 1

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Register

Developed Actively by vBSocial.com
The Art Department
SpringOfSea's Sketchbook