Does Anatomy matter to you in life drawing ????

[charlestoncaine]

Anatomy is for Michelangelo and doctors. Art is to depict something beyond flesh and bone. One can see anatomy as a launchpad or a destination.
I prefer to see it as a launchpad.

[lovin art]

Clive - Thankyou for ur kind support... I kinda dont agree with ur last thoughts about drawing them with clothes on ...as it does matter to know anatomy precisely for that reason if ur drawing figures that are clothed ...it certainly helps to know what's going on underneath the layers ...I mean just saying !

Originally Posted by charlestoncaine

Anatomy is for Michelangelo and doctors. Art is to depict something beyond flesh and bone. One can see anatomy as a launchpad or a destination.
I prefer to see it as a launchpad.

It's Not just about that for me , I want my art to be me ultimately , but I'm not willing to sacrifice understanding of structure ... And learning this does matter!!!! for that very reason... Logic dictates it and has done for hundreds of years ... I'm sure if he was around even Mick the Angelo) would agree .... Sighhh !!!

[treeshark]

Originally Posted by charlestoncaine

Anatomy is for Michelangelo and doctors.

Well, if it did for me what it did for Michelangelo I could live with being thought a bit of a swot.
I won't even hazard a guess at what art might be seeing beyond the corporeal, I just hope it's not my PIN number.
Rob

[lovin art]

Rob I totally get , what you meant now ....and the thing about getting art and what we want, think and feel from it , nothing ever reads right if it's not done right...

Guess its like a revelation for me In some way ... I know when I look with strong eyes it's there , but if I'm weak it certainly shows ... Cheers your good value !!!

[treeshark]

One the real gotchas about art is that you almost never feel you are succeeding because as you get better your expectations of what you need to achieve go up as well. I know some very good artists who do almost no work because they can't face the continual disappointments. All this stuff, anatomy, Loomis, whatever, are there to build you up and give confidence, like sport, you have to believe to win. When I start anything I am full of confidence, this lasts oh... about thirty seconds but by then it's too late and I'm started!
Rob

[lovin art]

Originally Posted by treeshark

One the real gotchas about art is that you almost never feel you are succeeding because as you get better your expectations of what you need to achieve go up as well. I know some very good artists who do almost no work because they can't face the continual disappointments. All this stuff, anatomy, Loomis, whatever, are there to build you up and give confidence, like sport, you have to believe to win. When I start anything I am full of confidence, this lasts oh... about thirty seconds but by then it's too late and I'm started!
Rob

me to .... loved reading all of this ... its so right ...

[roy-p]

Wonderful thread and responses. Gave me food for thought.

I revel in the interpretation of structure as well, and studying anatomy helps me learn what to look for. Having said that, I do understand that ultimately I draw figures as an icon for a visual communication, which allows me (intentionally or not) to connect with others - on a subliminal level at times. But I couldn't even have written this missive if I hadn't studied the anatomy of the English language.

[lovin art]

thankyou Sen for all the fine things you have ever said or thought about me .... for all the beautiful drawings you ever did of Alexis ...ill forever treasure them in the murky depths of my heart deep down...

I know one language thats universal and thats mostly love .....and i guess it transcends most things on this earth no matter what ...or at the very least I hope it does ....

[jasonart]

To answer the question literally, yes anatomy matters to me. If the final goal of a drawing is to look like a human being, then the successful drawing will have obeyed the laws of human anatomy whether the artist was thinking of muscle groups and bone structures or simply drawing 'what you see.'

Is knowledge of anatomy important for creating successful figure drawings? Yes again, but it's not the only important thing. I think it's entirely possible to draw from sight only. However, I do think that a knowledge of the basic structures of the body is a powerful tool to have and can help to 'connect the dots' when you're having trouble translating the live model to the paper.

If you go too far in the other direction, though, and rely too much on your knowledge of anatomy, I think it's possible to forget that the model is even there. If you're so comfortable with where every body part is supposed to be and what every muscle is supposed to look like, what's the point of even having a model?

For me, I'm trying to improve my knowledge of anatomy. I do have some Barrington Barber books that I rather like, but I find that learning from the model directly is best.

Hope this sort of makes sense!

Cheers!

[lovin art]

Makes complete sense Jason :-) ... I try to study the inner body as much as I want to show the humanness of the model I'm working From ... I'm nOt just about anatomy but yes without it , there's not much point to trying to tell a story is there.... Cheers I would write mOre but I'm already late ~ yikes !! ;-)

[Sonni]

Wasn't this already discussed somewhere in another thread? Or was that on another forum.... .anyway to this comment

"The longer one is that our eyes don't do any seeing, your brain takes a mush of data from the eyes and puts a plausible scene together filling in bits here and there from imagination. If you are in the street and some people cross the road but you don't really notice them the brain doesn't even bother to use the information from the eye much, but just pops in a stand in"

If you take a look at Gray's Anatomy, you will readily see how much the eye does take in. Everything in that book is illustrated and is great for studying the human form. Also, you could put what Rob says to the test by spending 5 minutes drawing from a live model and 5 minutes drawing a similar pose from memory. Do them at different times, not one right after another.

Actually, your subconscious does play a prominent role in what you produce (Harley Brown, myself, and others were recently talking --or is that texting about this on the Book Forum under Creativity). It's a very long thread, so if you are interested in reading Harley's thoughts, click on the last page and work up from there. Much of our creative work comes from the subconscious.

[treeshark]

Originally Posted by treeshark

"The longer one is that our eyes don't do any seeing, your brain takes a mush of data from the eyes and puts a plausible scene together filling in bits here and there from imagination. If you are in the street and some people cross the road but you don't really notice them the brain doesn't even bother to use the information from the eye much, but just pops in a stand in"

Originally Posted by Sonni

If you take a look at Gray's Anatomy, you will readily see how much the eye does take in. Everything in that book is illustrated and is great for studying the human form. Also, you could put what Rob says to the test by spending 5 minutes drawing from a live model and 5 minutes drawing a similar pose from memory. Do them at different times, not one right after another.

A bit puzzled by this. Grays anatomy doesn't have anything to say about what the eye takes in, so I guess you mean having studied the information is available? Although learning anatomy will help, I would think you also have to learn to integrate that knowledge with the directly perceived information.
As to the test, what are you testing here? Visual memory... that varies between individuals and can be learnt, which is a good topic in itself. If you go to a restaurant and were then questioned about the people at other tables afterwards, you would only be able to say anything about ones who drew your attention. Your eye will have passed over the others but not really registered them with the brain.

Richard Gregory who has studied this in depth says:

•A lot of information reaches the eye, but much is lost by the time it reaches the brain (Gregory estimates about 90% is lost).

• Therefore, the brain has to guess what a person sees based on past experiences. We actively construct our perception of reality.

• Richard Gregory proposed that perception involves a lot of hypothesis testing to make sense of the information presented to the sense organs.

• Our perceptions of the world are hypotheses based on past experiences and stored information.

• Sensory receptors receive information from the environment, which is then combined with previously stored information about the world which we have built up as a result of experience.

• The formation of incorrect hypotheses will lead to errors of perception (e.g. visual illusions like the Necker cube).

http://www.simplypsychology.org/perc...-theories.html

Interestingly it has recently been discovered that if the brain has to choose between what is there and what ought to be there it often chooses the latter and that is what you "see".

[Sonni]

Interesting that Richard Gregory is thrown into the frayl Gregory was a maverick psychologist who argued against the mainstream psychology. I do not know how he came up with 90% and I do not take his word as bible or agree with everything he says. Neither do some psychologists. The restaurant example is moot. We are talking about (or at least I am) directly focusing on the form before us. The one we intend to draw. Stay on topic...

Gray's Anatomy is only an example of what the eye can and does see and reproduce. Someone said this is not art. I tend to agree, It is a tool. It provides information, information that most beginning drawers lack. Information I lack. Of course, the forms may have been drawn from a memory chock full of preconceived forms and then reproduced. While I think we might be presumptuous in saying that, you cannot ignore that the book shows the average man and woman (of which there is no average) in peak (one would suppose) physical condition. But maybe this is a bit off topic, too.

I thought the test was pretty self explanatory. Draw what you "see" in five minutes . Most people will do what Gregory and you (Ron) suggest to make the drawing look "right." Some, and you can do this, will take pains to draw the edge of the form they see, point by point discarding tendencies to make stuff up or draw from their memory of what the form "should be." This is a case for measuring. Literally you are putting the eye and brain on the spot and not relying so much on past information you have stored on the human form. This is also drawing in a sort of abstract mode, not giving a name to a shape. Of course the eye has transferred this to the brain and the brain makes the decision. You can view the form upside down with a mirror and further distance yourself from the "idea" of what the form is. Good portrait painters must rely on what they see in front of them, not what the memory has stored. Would Gregory have said that would be the 10%? And then would you say that all faces are 90% the same and only 10% is different or new information. I don't know, but I don't think so.

Not looking at a form (any form) and drawing what the unconscious mind perceives to be correct allows the brain free reign to express what the form is based on that drawer's past experiences. Yes, this is sometimes called memory. Isn't that where the brain puts stuff?

[lovin art]

So what are u trying to say SOnni , that it's better to use our memory , over what's really there .. .. I'm just asking not having a bite , I'm very interested in this as I'm in kinda of A discussion much like this with one of my teachers at the moment

And while I can't quote him , I at the risk of sounding moron
Like, I just want to understand this better, dont we all !! , I mean that's why I started these thoughts in the first place ,it's all learning right ? I strongly belive understanding a full head of anatomy does help in perceiving form better , I saw that last night in my own ld , I had to draw from A male model , I don't get the chance to draw from many well structured athletic male bodies but well I drew him last year , it was a joke , now it's like there's a real human with lumps and bumps but I feel seeing his form and how it reads comes back to having a greater understanding to the inner structure and the muscle overlay to of course

Ps I liked reading both Rob not ( Ron's)and ur thoughts for what it's worth ...

[macrobertson]

yes I think this discussion has come up before... and will again as it is an endless relevant issue

•A lot of information reaches the eye, but much is lost by the time it reaches the brain (Gregory estimates about 90% is lost).

ah I think that is my problem.

It seems that people who draw the figure can do it better than those that don't, and those that understand the anatomy of the figure probably have more chance of being accurate as they know when things are not in proportion or not working right, and can often construct believable figures without reference.

however I think it is possible to create artistically accurate figure works without it... at least I hope so as I don't know much about anatomy.

But all this does not create good art... I was struck by JamiewG's quote of Alvero Castagnet in the PA forum , which I'm gonna steal here

If you think using your intellect is the answer in painting, you're wrong. Painting is intuitive. It cannot be learned mechanically. Painting is about capturing the intrinsic side of life, with it's mood and feeling. There are no shortcuts and no formula. Painting is based on insight and perception, not logic. If the painting lacks ambience, it is worthless. The mood is the only creative side of representational art. The painting has to have magic to it. Search for the surprising element of the day. Paintings shouldn't be "pleasant" or "pretty"; they have to have GUTS. If we try to just copy nature and be illustrators, nature will beat us every time. We need to look deeper than that.

Mac