Results 1 to 30 of 50
October 4th, 2012 #1
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).
Hide this ad by registering as a memberOctober 4th, 2012 #2
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.
October 4th, 2012 #3
October 4th, 2012 #4
i didn't even click the link...is that like some kind of foot fetish site?
October 4th, 2012 #5
lol i didnt read the url, its not though
 looks nice though http://barefoot.provocateuse.com/ima.naughty_09.jpg
October 4th, 2012 #6
As for poor Matt...I think that just an awkward pose he has in that photo.
October 4th, 2012 #7
Matthew has short legs and arms compared to his torso, enough to stand out imo. Look at where those elbows reach.
October 4th, 2012 #8
October 4th, 2012 #9
October 4th, 2012 #10
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.
October 4th, 2012 #11
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:
But as I said, it takes more than knowledge of ideal anatomy to make a picture work.
October 4th, 2012 #12
October 4th, 2012 #13
The Following User Says Thank You to Arshes Nei For This Useful Post:
October 4th, 2012 #14
October 4th, 2012 #15
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.
October 4th, 2012 #16
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.
October 4th, 2012 #17
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.
October 4th, 2012 #18
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.
October 4th, 2012 #19
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.
October 4th, 2012 #20
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 08:18 PM.
October 4th, 2012 #21
October 4th, 2012 #22
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.
October 4th, 2012 #23
October 4th, 2012 #24
October 4th, 2012 #25Five percent inspiration and ninety five percent transpiration.
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Sorocaba - São Paulo - Brazil
- Thanked 31 Times in 22 Posts
October 5th, 2012 #26
Well thanks for responding , was curious what people thought of this subject (and less about Matthew Mcconaughey).
October 7th, 2012 #27
is this the thread you were referring to?: http://conceptart.org/forums/showthr...ncept-amp-More
The anatomy crits seem perfectly valid to me.
**Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial
Crash Course for Artists, Illustrators, and Cartoonists, NYC, the 2013 Edition!
"Work is more fun than fun."
"Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."
October 7th, 2012 #28
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?).
(click here for larger version of this image)
October 7th, 2012 #29
The Following User Says Thank You to Star Eater For This Useful Post:
October 7th, 2012 #30
The Following User Says Thank You to dpaint For This Useful Post: