Critiquing on Anatomy/Proportions?

Join 500,000+ Artists

Its' free and it takes less than 10 seconds!

Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 50
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    631
    Thanks
    209
    Thanked 168 Times in 91 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    Critiquing on Anatomy/Proportions?

    I was browsing finally finished today and came across a set of pictures that, while in need of some improvement, got the critique that the bodies were out of proportion - legs too short and arms, torsos too long. And I was looking at these pictures and thinking I've seen WAY WORSE in real life. I've seen people with ridiculously short legs and unbelievably long ones, and arms. So what are we critiquing based on? Some average? what about variety? What if I'm drawing Matthew Mcconaughey (http://barefoot.provocateuse.com/ima...naughey_09.jpg).

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #2
    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
    I think everything has to be in the context of the picture/subject. Solid anatomy helps
    to break the rules effectively which can make a picture work when all the elements are in place.

    It's all pretty subjective, but sometimes its glaringly obvious where an unintentional flaw is trying to
    get fudged in by the artist or is otherwise bringing down the rest of the picture. A good solid gesture
    can go a really long way to make a picture work where anatomy is unusual.

    Exaggerated anatomy is fun.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Vienna
    Posts
    2,110
    Thanks
    801
    Thanked 909 Times in 455 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by nofu View Post
    What if I'm drawing Matthew Mcconaughey (http://barefoot.provocateuse.com/ima...naughey_09.jpg).
    erm pardon, what? are you saying that hes got proportions that stand for variety? why? based on that picture?

    newest sketchbook
    oil paintings

    "Have only 4 values, but all the edges you want." Glen Orbik
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. #4
    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
    i didn't even click the link...is that like some kind of foot fetish site?

    hahaha

    Critiquing on Anatomy/Proportions?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Vienna
    Posts
    2,110
    Thanks
    801
    Thanked 909 Times in 455 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    lol i didnt read the url, its not though

    [edit] looks nice though http://barefoot.provocateuse.com/ima.naughty_09.jpg

    newest sketchbook
    oil paintings

    "Have only 4 values, but all the edges you want." Glen Orbik
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. #6
    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
    As for poor Matt...I think that just an awkward pose he has in that photo.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    631
    Thanks
    209
    Thanked 168 Times in 91 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Matthew has short legs and arms compared to his torso, enough to stand out imo. Look at where those elbows reach.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Vienna
    Posts
    2,110
    Thanks
    801
    Thanked 909 Times in 455 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    well thats taken at a fraction of a second in mid action... what do you expect... the proportions are fine though along with the 7.5 heads male (which i consider way more natural than 8 heads btw)

    newest sketchbook
    oil paintings

    "Have only 4 values, but all the edges you want." Glen Orbik
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  10. #9
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    91
    Thanks
    67
    Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Well, I think you are right, people while critiquing are normally thinking on perfect proportions, but is hard to say when someone is trying something new or just don´t know how to draw.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    631
    Thanks
    209
    Thanked 168 Times in 91 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mybe a better picture, ignore the text http://www.waleg.com/celebrities/images/mmcc-abs.jpg. As compared to I have elbows that reach slightly below my bellybutton and I have a short torso compared to everything else.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  12. #11
    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
    I think I can kind of see what you are getting at...when I type in Matthew Mcconaughey
    in google, I got a "short arms" search query option...so clearly you are not alone in this.
    I've never noticed before. It's like when you notice Shannen Doherty has one eye higher
    than the other...after you see it. You'll always see it:

    http://alexplorer.net/humor/shannen/doherty.html

    But as I said, it takes more than knowledge of ideal anatomy to make a picture work.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Vienna
    Posts
    2,110
    Thanks
    801
    Thanked 909 Times in 455 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by nofu View Post
    Matthew has short legs and arms compared to his torso, enough to stand out imo. Look at where those elbows reach.
    thats not what i get from this picture... its just foreshortening on his upperarms... theyre bent back... also foreshortening on his legs. thats the main trap of believing in photography as a perfect representation. to me as said his proportions are perfectly fine even in this pic.

    newest sketchbook
    oil paintings

    "Have only 4 values, but all the edges you want." Glen Orbik
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  14. #13
    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
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Arshes Nei For This Useful Post:


  16. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Vienna
    Posts
    2,110
    Thanks
    801
    Thanked 909 Times in 455 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    i dont get it ...

    Name:  mmcc-ref-01.jpg
Views: 753
Size:  39.9 KB

    great links arshes ty.

    newest sketchbook
    oil paintings

    "Have only 4 values, but all the edges you want." Glen Orbik
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  17. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    1,238
    Thanks
    889
    Thanked 1,535 Times in 567 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I guess I don't understand what the original post is about. We can never critique anatomy because Matthew Mc. has short arms? Maybe you can make your concerns a little clearer by giving an example of a specific concern you have when some critiqued a piece?

    The most important thing to remember is that reality is never as important as the picture. Just because a photo says it's right doesn't mean that it's right. Make the picture work. An experienced artist, and even many not so experienced artists, can tell if the anatomy is not working whether it is accurate or not.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  18. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    185
    Thanks
    219
    Thanked 114 Times in 66 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    a few weeks ago while climbing we were comparing the length of our arms (regarding our bodies) and some had really short arms and some really long arms. also (i think i first realized it after watching coro's alla prima video) usually no body is symmetrical. and then again sometimes you see soooo strange looking faces and people that when you would paint them like this most people will think it's more of a caricature....and so on.

    but in the end i think (at least for me) you have to be able to do it "perfectly" first before you should start doing crazy proportions. otherwise it won't look believable and people will say that the proportions are off. and i think when you reached the level to be able to go crazy on proportions people will see that you are skilled enough and did it on purpose.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  19. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    631
    Thanks
    209
    Thanked 168 Times in 91 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    sone_one, I believe you are the one now taking that given photo and the pose in it too literally. http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/pho...09-2006-a.html, many a these, having better positioned bodies, showing the arms don't reach that much down the leg and the elbows end quite high up.

    Regardless, I brought Matthew up as someone, who (in my eyes) has short limbs and it was related to the critique I mentioned about shortness of legs. And these images critiqued were fairly standard sort of character design style, just standing there type of pictures. Average humans in late-medieval getup, the every day working army dude or whatnot. Surely someone who's lacking enough heroicness to afford short legs.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  20. #18
    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 it looks "wrong" in the picture, then you generally want to change it so it looks "right." That is, so it looks "right" in the picture. Whether it's accurate to your source or ideally proportioned or exaggerated to hell and back. Or not.

    N. C. Wyeth frequently does very stocky people, but they look right in the picture. Likewise Rembrandt often has nearly dwarfish proportions on his figures, but they look right in the picture. And Van Dyke painted portraits with freakish fashion-model proportions, but they look right in the picture. And speaking of fashion-model proportions, fashion illustration and art deco prints have wildly whacked-out proportions - but when done well they look right for the kind of pictures they are.

    That's what it all comes down to. Does it look right in the picture? If yes, cool. If no, change it. You are not a slave to the reference.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  21. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Vienna
    Posts
    2,110
    Thanks
    801
    Thanked 909 Times in 455 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by nofu View Post
    sone_one, I believe you are the one now taking that given photo and the pose in it too literally. http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/pho...09-2006-a.html, many a these, having better positioned bodies, showing the arms don't reach that much down the leg and the elbows end quite high up.

    Regardless, I brought Matthew up as someone, who (in my eyes) has short limbs and it was related to the critique I mentioned about shortness of legs. And these images critiqued were fairly standard sort of character design style, just standing there type of pictures. Average humans in late-medieval getup, the every day working army dude or whatnot. Surely someone who's lacking enough heroicness to afford short legs.
    would have been easier if you linked the thread youre referring to.

    and no im not taking it too literally ... noone i can think of would crit the proportions in my trace... and im running into this "but there... you see?! its in the photo!!!!" bs all too often.
    photos are like books... you need to get the language, metaphors, mode of operation, etc... to read them. e.g. you need to know a sentence is read from left to right.
    people think just because they got eyes they can read (books aswell as photos) and yet we didnt even get to distilling the information needed to write your review or paint your picture...
    theres a lot of technical aspects happening with photos that dont compare to how we see.

    newest sketchbook
    oil paintings

    "Have only 4 values, but all the edges you want." Glen Orbik
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  22. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    631
    Thanks
    209
    Thanked 168 Times in 91 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I'm not really critiquing the proportions in the trace, I'm critiquing the trace. To me no matter how I picture him standing or moving in my head, whether I'm viewing him from low or high points I can see that he is of rather stocky build, this view is based on a deeper understanding and is not attached to any single photo.

    But this brings out interesting differences. To you he is of completely average proportions. I'm assuming you would base a drawing on same proportions and see this as the 'norm', while as someone else would say his arms are too short (as indeed the popular search shows, I am not the only one thinking so). so lets say someone, who is very insecure about their anatomy draws a man in similar proportions and the first (and only maybe) one to critique is the one who says the limbs are too short. Whether he is doing so out of expertise or just as QGwenevere said knows it might me correct but simply looks wrong in that case or is naively attached to some certain ideal proportions, what is that beginner artist to take out of that critique?

    Last edited by nofu; October 4th, 2012 at 07:18 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  23. #21
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    91
    Thanks
    67
    Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    His arms looks normal for me, what looks very long is his torso

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  24. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,001
    Thanks
    891
    Thanked 1,009 Times in 538 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    As someone mentioned already. Find some examples from the Finally Finished or critique section where someone says anatomies off and you think it's fine. Because right now there is frankly no way to tell if it's all just in your head, or an issue of inexperience or just some people giving bad crits.


    Also ty Arshes that was an amazing link. (wheres thanks button when you need it lol) bookmarked.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  25. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Vienna
    Posts
    2,110
    Thanks
    801
    Thanked 909 Times in 455 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by nofu View Post
    I'm not really critiquing the proportions in the trace, I'm critiquing the trace. To me no matter how I picture him standing or moving in my head, whether I'm viewing him from low or high points I can see that he is of rather stocky build, this view is based on a deeper understanding and is not attached to any single photo.

    But this brings out interesting differences. To you he is of completely average proportions. I'm assuming you would base a drawing on same proportions and see this as the 'norm', while as someone else would say his arms are too short (as indeed the popular search shows, I am not the only one thinking so). so lets say someone, who is very insecure about their anatomy draws a man in similar proportions and the first (and only maybe) one to critique is the one who says the limbs are too short. Whether he is doing so out of expertise or just as QGwenevere said knows it might me correct but simply looks wrong in that case or is naively attached to some certain ideal proportions, what is that beginner artist to take out of that critique?
    serious?

    newest sketchbook
    oil paintings

    "Have only 4 values, but all the edges you want." Glen Orbik
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  26. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    1,238
    Thanks
    889
    Thanked 1,535 Times in 567 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by nofu View Post
    I'm not really critiquing the proportions in the trace, I'm critiquing the trace. To me no matter how I picture him standing or moving in my head, whether I'm viewing him from low or high points I can see that he is of rather stocky build, this view is based on a deeper understanding and is not attached to any single photo.

    But this brings out interesting differences. To you he is of completely average proportions. I'm assuming you would base a drawing on same proportions and see this as the 'norm', while as someone else would say his arms are too short (as indeed the popular search shows, I am not the only one thinking so). so lets say someone, who is very insecure about their anatomy draws a man in similar proportions and the first (and only maybe) one to critique is the one who says the limbs are too short. Whether he is doing so out of expertise or just as QGwenevere said knows it might me correct but simply looks wrong in that case or is naively attached to some certain ideal proportions, what is that beginner artist to take out of that critique?
    The beginner is to take out of this critique that one critique will teach you very little. It is only through a mass of critiques over long periods of time where we learn. There is no getting around the fact that if you draw enough you will get good and bad critiques. Only time and more drawing will get you to the point of being able to sift and distill information to make it personally useful. So if you get a critique you are unsure of draw it again and again and eventually, with hard work, it will start to look right.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  27. #25
    Vinicam is offline Five percent inspiration and ninety five percent transpiration.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Sorocaba - São Paulo - Brazil
    Posts
    130
    Thanks
    45
    Thanked 31 Times in 22 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  28. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    631
    Thanks
    209
    Thanked 168 Times in 91 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Well thanks for responding , was curious what people thought of this subject (and less about Matthew Mcconaughey).

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  29. #27
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Hudson River valley, NY
    Posts
    16,212
    Thanks
    4,879
    Thanked 16,670 Times in 5,020 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    is this the thread you were referring to?: http://conceptart.org/forums/showthr...ncept-amp-More

    The anatomy crits seem perfectly valid to me.


    Tristan Elwell
    **Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial

    Crash Course for Artists, Illustrators, and Cartoonists, NYC, the 2013 Edition!

    "Work is more fun than fun."
    -John Cale

    "Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."
    -Marc Maron
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  30. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Elwell For This Useful Post:


  31. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,202
    Thanks
    1,192
    Thanked 1,232 Times in 793 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I agree and disagree. On the one hand, yes people come in all shapes and sizes, and I think it's kind of silly to draw everyone to same 'ideal' proportions. Some people are short, and I don't mind if the person I happen to draw appears a little shorter than the 'ideal'. But, on the other hand, sometimes the proportions are so off it distracts the audience from enjoying an otherwise well done piece. In that case, you have to ask yourself whether the non-standard proportions are important enough to keep (ie is it part of the concept or are you just too lazy to change it?).


    Quote Originally Posted by Star Eater View Post
    It's like when you notice Shannen Doherty has one eye higher
    than the other...after you see it. You'll always see it:

    http://alexplorer.net/humor/shannen/doherty.html
    That reminds me, is it just me or are Bradley Cooper's eyes on a slant?

    Critiquing on Anatomy/Proportions?
    (click here for larger version of this image)

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  32. #29
    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 dierat View Post
    I agree and disagree. On the one hand, yes people come in all shapes and sizes, and I think it's kind of silly to draw everyone to same 'ideal' proportions. Some people are short, and I don't mind if the person I happen to draw appears a little shorter than the 'ideal'. But, on the other hand, sometimes the proportions are so off it distracts the audience from enjoying an otherwise well done piece. In that case, you have to ask yourself whether the non-standard proportions are important enough to keep (ie is it part of the concept or are you just too lazy to change it?).


    That reminds me, is it just me or are Bradley Cooper's eyes on a slant?
    My wife walked up behind me while I was reading your post and said "That guys eyes -are- skew."

    She's always right. So I guess that's the matter settled.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  33. The Following User Says Thank You to Star Eater For This Useful Post:


  34. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,716
    Thanks
    2,674
    Thanked 5,930 Times in 2,383 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    This thread reminds me of Seinfeld where they couldn't ever stay in relationships because they always found something wrong with everyone else.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to dpaint For This Useful Post:


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

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